Furor Over 12-Year-Old Fanning's Rape Scene
The New York Times
LOS ANGELES (Jan. 22) — Dakota Fanning will turn 13 next month, and she has a short answer for anyone who questions her decision to play a 1950s girl who gyrates in her underwear, wakes up as her naked father climbs into her bed, demands that a prepubescent boy expose himself to her in exchange for a kiss and, finally, is raped by a teenager who lures her with tickets to an Elvis concert:

She’s growing up. Get used to it.

Ms. Fanning, best known for leading roles in children’s movies like “Dreamer” and “Charlotte’s Web,” thrillers like “Man on Fire” and “War of the Worlds,” and the horror film “Hide and Seek,” now is starring in “Hounddog,” an independent film that is to have its premiere on Monday at the Sundance Film Festival. It has already won attention far out of proportion to its budget of less than $4 million.

When “Hounddog” was still shooting last summer near Wilmington, N.C., rumors about the rape scene kicked up a storm on the socially conservative end of the Web spectrum. Some suggested that Ms. Fanning was being exploited by the filmmakers, her parents and her agent. Hundreds signed a petition to persuade a local district attorney to prosecute the filmmakers under a law banning simulated sex with a minor.

The furor hampered the production, and it continues on Fox News and on Web sites like A Minor Consideration (minorcon.org), run by Paul Petersen, an advocate for child actors. Mr. Petersen, himself a former child actor who played Donna Reed’s son on her 1960s sitcom, said in an interview that Ms. Fanning should never have been allowed to play the victim in a rape scene, no matter how much she wanted to or how sensitively it was filmed, and that her doing so violated the letter of federal child-pornography law.

“Nothing excuses it,” he said. “The plain cold fact is this is illegal, the statutes are what they are, and Hollywood chose to ignore it. If they’d made the character 15, and hired a 19-year-old, they wouldn’t have heard a peep out of me.”
But the Wilmington district attorney, who was shown a cut of the movie, said no crime was committed, and the film’s writer and director, Deborah Kampmeier, said Ms. Fanning was treated more than appropriately: Though her character, Lewellen, disrobes under duress, for example, she is not seen nude, and Ms. Fanning was always clothed during the production.

Ms. Fanning, for her part, says she is mystified by the outcry. Anyone who sees the film, she said on Monday in her first interview on the subject, would understand that the rape scene wasn’t the point of the movie.

“That’s not who Lewellen is,” she said, sitting in her agent’s office in Universal City, braces on her teeth and a small crucifix over her sweater. “Because that has happened to her, that doesn’t define her. Because of this thing that has happened — that she did not ask for — she is labeled that, and it’s her story to overcome that and to be a whole person again.”

“There are so many children that this happens to, every second,” she added. “That’s the sad part. If anyone’s talking about anything, that’s what they should be talking about.”

Her mother, Joy Fanning, waited outside, and her agent, Cindy Osbrink, sat in, but it was Ms. Fanning who fielded the questions, and who made clear that her choices were, well, just that.

“You know, I’m an actress,” she said. “It’s what I want to do, it’s what I’ve been so lucky to have done for almost seven years now. And I am getting older. February 23 is my birthday, I’ll be 13 years old. And I will be playing different kinds of roles. I won’t be able to do the things I did when I was 6 years old when I’m 14. And that’s what I look forward to — getting to play new roles that aren’t too old for me and aren’t too young for me, that are just at the right time.”

She added: “Lewellen is still very innocent, she’s still a child, but she’s also a little bit wise beyond her years because of the things she’s seen and been through. So I think that I should be able to do what I feel is at the right time for me.”

The story of “Hounddog” is about not just rape but also about the cycle of violence: nearly every major character in it is motherless, wounded, repressed and destructive. Lewellen’s grandmother (Piper Laurie) violates her too, if only with her eyes; her father (David Morse ) has been abusing her more directly, and it appears likely that, if nothing changes, Lewellen will become an abuser too.

Get the Latest Festival Buzz at AOL's Sundance HQMs. Kampmeier said in a telephone interview that she had originally written the character as a 9-year-old, and first signed the actors Robin Wright Penn and Mr. Morse for the project in the late 1990s. But a succession of financial backers withdrew four times in four years, and she set the script aside in 2002 to make “Virgin,” her first feature, about a pregnant girl who believes that she is carrying God’s child; Ms. Wright Penn played the girl’s mother in the film, which received mixed reviews.

When Ms. Kampmeier sent Ms. Fanning the script for “Hounddog” in July 2005, Ms. Fanning said: “The bottom line was, I couldn’t not do it. It’s all I could think about. I knew I was at the perfect age.”

She had to wait nine months as Ms. Kampmeier hunted for investors; the subject matter remained objectionable to most, even with a proven star in the central role, the director said. (Making the most of that delay, Ms. Fanning said, the director sent her an e-mail message with a new question about Lewellen each morning: Favorite color? Favorite food? “That’s why I was so comfortable in Lewellen’s skin,” Ms. Fanning said, “because I knew so much about her.”)

Ms. Kampmeier said investors kept balking at the rape scene, demanding that it be shunted off-screen, merely implied or removed from the plot altogether.

About the online petitions to have her arrested, she said that the district attorney’s office in Wilmington was busy prosecuting real sex crimes, like one in which a 10-year-old girl was impregnated by her father. “All these cases are reported in the newspaper, and nobody ever calls them about that,” she said. “But they get 10 to 20 calls a day from people insisting that my movie be prosecuted.”

Ms. Fanning said the most taxing scene for her was one in which her sleeping character is covered by snakes that slither in through the open window of her tumbledown shack.

But it may be an earlier pivotal scene that draws more critical attention, should “Hounddog” find a distributor. In it Lewellen sings and dances her best Elvis impression — horizontally, on her bed — upon learning that the singer is coming to town. While she does, however, a teenage milkman is in the room, looking on a little too hungrily.

Overly sexual behavior in minors is often a telltale sign of prior abuse, and provocation is, unfortunately, in the eye of the provoked. But to Ms. Kampmeier’s mind, and more important, to Ms. Fanning’s, Lewellen’s dancing in this scene is as innocent as her already corrupted life can get.

“She’s 12 years old,” Ms. Fanning said. “She’s doing that because that’s fun. She’s not going so far as to think, ‘Oh, am I doing something wrong?’ or ‘Is this going to look in a weird way?’ He’s just her milkman. He’s coming to pick up the empties.”


OK folks, this may spark some negs for me but, my position on this is that scenes showing violence against children should not be mocked or even allowed to be filmed. Sexual Predators already have enough stimulation and victims, this kind of thing is deplorable. Someone will surely tell me that there is no way seeing a movie will drive a potential predator to violence, I whole heartedly disagree. No, I haven't seen the film but I agree with the initial sponsors, this could still have been accomplished without actually filming a rape scene of a twelve year old. We no longer seem to have any moral values, art seems to have taken over, if you want to call that art.

------------------
Ron
Land of the Free because of the Brave. Most gave some, some gave all.
My imagination is the only limiting factor to my Fiero. Well, there is that money issue.

[This message has been edited by blackrams (edited 01-22-2007).]

Was she really raped or was it acting?

(rhetorical question)

quote Originally posted by blackrams: rumors about the rape scene kicked up a storm on the socially conservative end of the Web spectrum.

Just what you would expect from the NY Times. Social Liberals are coming out in droves against it too. There is nothing "progressive" about child rape.

Fanning is 12 years old. Last time I checked ANY minor exposed to sexually explicit actions, staged or otherwise, was a crime! Contributing to the delinquency of a minor. Ringing any bells NYT boys? If the NEW YORK TIMES wants to have the laws changed them let 'em try. In the mean time, I do hope they don't mind if the rest of us do our bit to enforce them.

On the NON-LEGAL side of the equation you have the problem of separating the moral issue of exposing a 12 year old to an adult concept like rape. The Industry association for former child stars (can't remember the official name of the organization) run by Paul Peterson of the Donna Reed Show has condemned the Fanning movie. One need only look to Judy Garland, Tatum O'Neal, Michael Jackson, Gary Coleman or a host of other warped former child stars to see how damaging this kind of stuff is to them in later life.

[This message has been edited by Toddster (edited 01-22-2007).]

i was disturbed by this when i first read about it.

i think the producers of the movie have made a grave error in judgment, in not casting a person over the age of consent, for what seem to me to be purely commercial/promotional reasons.

i think it's naive to believe that any normal 12 year old in this culture isn't pretty thoroughly familiar with the concept of rape... particularly a 12 year old with as broad exposure as one raised in the entertainment industry. but it strikes me that this choice was gratuitous and unnecessary, and i can only hope that in the long run the film instructs, or even horrifies, far more than it titillates.

of course, i have absolutely no intention of seeing the film, either, so that's about as far as my own judgment can go.

I think Dakota is a very good actress and very smart for her age, and of course wouldn't like seeing her in this role, but well if that is what she chose to do, then its not my business to judge her. I can simply choose whether or not I watch the film.

I guess they should have just filmed an 18 yr old, who looks like a child, and then everything would have been "acceptable". Strange how that works.

Didn't we go thru this before with Jodie Foster and a few others?

btw. this may help some....movies are not real. The movies don't make you go out and do something, neither does the music or whatever else. If you feel a movie/music makes you do something, then chances are you already had a serious problem.

Isn't it ironic that a staged scene using actors in a movie seems to cause more public uproar than the real thing which occurs thousands of times a day to young girls and boys around the world?

Last week I watched a remarkable documentary film on PBS called Hand of God. Wow, what an eye opener on what’s been going on in the Catholic church. Gawd damn priests molesting young boys with the upper echelon of the Catholic church fully aware of the situation and yet doing nothing about it for years and years. I hope there’s a special place in Hell for these so called “men of the cloth”.

[EDIT] I wanted to add that the Catholic church wasn't just "doing nothing" as I earlier posted, but they were actively covering it up and allowing it to continue. When a priest was found with his hand in the cookie jar (so to speak) too many times, they just moved him to a different parish where this abuse would occur again and again.

Man oh man, how many young boys had their innocence stolen and their lives ruined by these perverted b*st*rds? I'm sure there are many members of this very forum who have stories which would make us sick.

[This message has been edited by Patrick (edited 01-22-2007).]

quote Originally posted by Patrick: I hope there’s a special place in Hell for these so called “men of the cloth”.

There is. And the uproar was massive when the story first broke...15 years ago.

quote Originally posted by Toddster: And the uproar was massive when the story first broke...15 years ago.

It only took how many hundred years for that to happen?

Duh, now what's the point of this movie? So that adult men can get-off while viewing the movie? Isn't these child actors having enough issues in they're lives? Years from now, she'll be drop n' pills like the Calvin Klein girl now does when she was featured in the commercial back in the 70's [nothing is get's between me and my Calvin jeans].

D. Fanning's parents should be horse beaten for allowing their child to appear in the movie.

quote Originally posted by madcurl: Duh, now what's the point of this movie? So that adult men can get-off while viewing the movie? Isn't these child actors having enough issues in they're lives? Years from now, she'll be drop n' pills like the Calvin Klein girl now does when she was featured in the commercial back in the 70's [nothing is get's between me and my Calvin jeans]. D. Fanning's parents should be horse beaten for allowing their child to appear in the movie.

While I have not seen the movie, I don't think its reason for existing is to help adult men get-off. So if this movie is released in theaters, do we then just assume that everyone in line buying a ticket is into child rape scenes? That would be absurd.

There is plenty of other content readily available for that purpose, especially with the content that is probably available online.

[This message has been edited by Gecko (edited 01-23-2007).]

quote Originally posted by Gecko: While I have not seen the movie, I don't think its reason for existing is to help adult men get-off. So if this movie is released in theaters, do we then just assume that everyone in line buying a ticket is into child rape scenes? That would be absurd. There is plenty of other content readily available for that purpose, especially with the content that is probably available online.

"do we then just assume that everyone in line buying a ticket is into child rape scenes?"
Absolutely not, but how many of the movie goers fall into that category, hard to say. Directors are always looking for ways to draw more attention to their films.

"There is plenty of other content readily available for that purpose, especially with the content that is probably available online."

Agreed, so why did this need to be in the movie? Another Artsy statement I suppose. There are way too many sick individuals out there. When we start accepting this kind of thing as the norm, as being ok, we have taken another step down the ladder of culture.

I totally agree with the post made earlier that the parents should be horse whipped. Our children represent one of the
few opportunities we have in life to leave this world better than when we got here. We are failing miserably.

------------------
Ron
Land of the Free because of the Brave. Most gave some, some gave all.
My imagination is the only limiting factor to my Fiero. Well, there is that money issue.

quote Originally posted by Patrick: Isn't it ironic that a staged scene using actors in a movie seems to cause more public uproar than the real thing which occurs thousands of times a day to young girls and boys around the world? Last week I watched a remarkable documentary film on PBS

I know nothing about the producer of the movie. So all I can go by is what is usually the case. The movie will fall into the 'entertainment' industry. And, yes, you can throw in there that there are some 'socially redeeming' qualities in some movies.

But the context of this situation is the sexual molestation of a female child in an entertainment movie. I would think that is the cause of the uproar. I don't think society is at a point yet where there isn't an uproar over child molestations (certain segments of the catholic priesthood notwithstanding. And I am not anti-catholic, but come on. The number of times it has happened and instead of being an uproar, the guys is protected. Shameful. But I did say 'segments'. Not all.). But this movie is for entertainment and for making money.

Whereas the documentary on PBS was NOT for entertainment and making money. It was for shedding light on a serious issue in a serious way.

That is what makes this situation different for me.

quote Originally posted by Patrick: Isn't it ironic that a staged scene using actors in a movie seems to cause more public uproar than the real thing which occurs thousands of times a day to young girls and boys around the world?

totally untrue. this is one short little thing in a newpaper trying to sell papers. noone really cares. this is press for a movie.
and - its just a movie - everything is staged. even if based on true events. Darth Vader is NOT for real - tho my alter ego - Darth Diggler - is 100% real.....

The law defines "child pornography" as depictions of children engaging in sex acts, or lewd exposure of genitals. Simulated or not, showing a child being raped probably would qualify. A lot depends on how the scene is shot and how much of Fanning's skin is shown.

Still, I have zero interest in seeing the movie and less tolerance for sexualizing children.

Ed

My recently deceased Cousin, Pat, Who I found dead last friday, was a victim of the very same things, during the VERY same era depicted in the film. She was a Psychologists worst nightmare because of this very same subject until the end. I cared for her the last 6 months of her life.

Needless to say, I won't be seeing this.

I have no more to say about this subject.
S. Willliams.

------------------
1988 Fiero Formula T-tops
CJB 143 of 1252 "factory T-top cars"

Its a movie. Brook Shields done the same thing 40 years ago, not a big deal. (Pretty Baby). I think people should mind their own business and raise their own kids....which most are not. We'd be in a much better place if anyone paid as much attention to their own kids as someone making a fiction movie who has her own people watching out for her.

yeah - there is the child **** issue.

also - ever notice you never SEE kids killed in movies?
it get implied, events leading up to, events after - but never see the kid get shot, stabbed, etc.

quote Originally posted by rogergarrison: Its a movie. Brook Shields done the same thing 40 years ago, not a big deal. (Pretty Baby). I think people should mind their own business and raise their own kids....which most are not. We'd be in a much better place if anyone paid as much attention to their own kids as someone making a fiction movie who has her own people watching out for her.

It was a big deal back then, too. The current comments reminded me of that. Jodie Foster got some similar comments.

I agree that people should raise their own kids and aren't really raising them. Just feeding and clothing them and that is about it.

I hope almost no one goes to the movie and it bombs so society sends a message that we aren't entertained by a topic like that. Ultimately, movie producers will see how society "votes".

quote Originally posted by frontal lobe: I hope almost no one goes to the movie and it bombs so society sends a message that we aren't entertained by a topic like that. Ultimately, movie producers will see how society "votes".

Thank you for your voice. I know it's only a movie but it's also an indicator of our society and culture. IMO, when this is accepted, we all lose.

------------------
Ron
Land of the Free because of the Brave. Most gave some, some gave all.
My imagination is the only limiting factor to my Fiero. Well, there is that money issue.

I wasn't around when those other films were made (well or I was too young to remember) but if the true intention is to bring attention to this issue than I don't have as much of a problem with it. Most people don't watch the documentaries on PBS or any channel so if they hear people talking about this movie it may bring light to the subject.

That non-withstanding, I think it sounds a little too graphic.

quote Originally posted by Pyrthian: totally untrue. this is one short little thing in a newpaper trying to sell papers. noone really cares.

Just “one short little thing in a newspaper”, eh?

If you wish to discount and dismiss everything in the media, fine, but why are there are so far twenty posts in this thread, two of which are yours, if “no one really cares” about this staged rape scene? Seems to me it’s definitely struck a chord with many forum members here.

And how many threads and posts do we see in this forum about all the rapes of young girls and boys which really did take place in Detroit and Vancouver last night? ....None.

Maybe it’s just my perception, but I find the general public’s concern to be on the wrong incident.

My earlier statement still stands.

quote Originally posted by Patrick: Isn't it ironic that a staged scene using actors in a movie seems to cause more public uproar than the real thing which occurs thousands of times a day to young girls and boys around the world?

Blackrams----

You are only making publicity for a stupid AMERICAN film company.

Learn that opportunists abound in this fallen nation.

People who will make a buck off of anything...even war.

OUT>

quote Originally posted by G-Nasty: Blackrams---- You are only making publicity for a stupid AMERICAN film company. Learn that opportunists abound in this fallen nation. People who will make a buck off of anything...even war. OUT>

Hopefully, just the opposite will occur, no one will go see this movie and that in it's self will send another message. But, I do understand you comment, just hoping you're not correct.

------------------
Ron
Land of the Free because of the Brave. Most gave some, some gave all.
My imagination is the only limiting factor to my Fiero. Well, there is that money issue.

quote Originally posted by frontal lobe: Whereas the documentary on PBS was NOT for entertainment and making money. It was for shedding light on a serious issue in a serious way. That is what makes this situation different for me.

Doc, I hope you don’t think that I was in any way comparing the documentary on PBS to this Hollywood movie. If you were, no no no no...

I mentioned the documentary film Hand of God in this thread to help demonstrate that the general public has often turned a blind eye to the real thing, and then oddly enough many of these same people get worked up over a staged scene in a movie.

I applaud people for being concerned about the well-being of their children, it just seems to me that history proves their energies have often been misdirected.

What makes me sick is that someone can ACTUALLY rape a teenager, someone by the name of R Kelly for example, and not have the public outcry that this has recieved. Did he even do any serious jail time? registered sex offender?

It's a movie, it's acting, and it's fake. Why don't we save the concern for young people who are actually getting raped.

Out of sight, out of mind. Its only a big deal cause its in a movie. As was pointed out by others and in the story itself, most of us can quietly forget, in the course of our daily lives, that assaults on children happen all the time. We'll see an occasional news story, and we'll feel bad for the kid, and we'll be glad that the pervert was caught, and then we'll go on with our lives, until another story pops up in the news. But most of us won't do anything proactive about it. And what can we do? We have no good way of knowing who the predators are and when they'll strike before they do.

But in the case of this movie, we can make a martyr of it. We can't do anything to prevent the real thing from happening, but we can sure as hell do something about this movie, because this time, we have the luxury of knowing about it before it happens. Everyone is more than willing to conveniently ignore the fact that its a movie and, as such, NOT REAL. No, on principle alone, we shall vanquish this movie so that we can feel as though we've actually done something to help, and so that the problem itself is cast back into the dark, all nice and nearly invisible so that we can go back to living our lives without having this issue brought to our attention any more so than it already (barely) is. Ignorance is bliss, right? Censorship is excusable if it makes us feel better about ourselves.

Its a movie, people. If you don't like it, don't go see it.

Who cares.. It's a movie..lol I cannot believe people are getting upset over this.

quote Originally posted by Patrick: Doc, I hope you don’t think that I was in any way comparing the documentary on PBS to this Hollywood movie. If you were, no no no no... I mentioned the documentary film Hand of God in this thread to help demonstrate that the general public has often turned a blind eye to the real thing, and then oddly enough many of these same people get worked up over a staged scene in a movie. I applaud people for being concerned about the well-being of their children, it just seems to me that history proves their energies have often been misdirected.

No, not at all. I thought your comment was excellent. They were both films about children being abused, but I really felt the one you pointed out was about concern for bringing attention to a horrendous problem. And I thought (as best as I can tell) that this one is about 'entertainment' and making money. And I THINK and hope that is the reason why this movie depiction engendered such a relative reaction compared to the REAL times when it happens.

And I agree with misdirected energies. I feel really bad about society if we/they are at a point where we/they don't care about when it REALLY happens. The sad reality is that when it really happens, it is so common now that it is hardly news. If we had a thread about every REAL abused child, PFF would probably need its own forum category. That is a pathetic commentary on 'society'.

.

[This message has been edited by JazzMan (edited 12-08-2008).]

i really doubt it. its being shown at the sundance film fest. so unless you are media, hollywood types or well connected it won't be out for a couple-few months? nobody has even bought the film yet so maybe its not even that good?

i suppose this comes down to the question: Does life imitate art or does art imitate life?

while i don't really agree with the scene in question, maybe it will help educate and prevent this sort of thing. on the other hand, poor Dakota will probably end up in rehab like Drew by the time she's 15.

Changed my mind.

------------------
Ron
Land of the Free because of the Brave. Most gave some, some gave all.
My imagination is the only limiting factor to my Fiero. Well, there is that money issue.

[This message has been edited by blackrams (edited 01-23-2007).]

Interesting subject, my read of the news story got the impression of a movie that deals with a hard topic, through generations. Not a gratuitous rape scene to get anyone 'off'. Stated she remained clothed the entire time also. It's called acting and it's not represented as 'real' or for anyone's jollies.

Guess we need to stop using kids in films where they watch people get killed, chased by evildoers, scared (well, they don't but... hey they shouldn't be subjected to acting like they did?). Guess we could do something useful with them like make them into sausages instead.

Interesting that the subject matter sounds like it's the nonstop theme of the Lifetime channel for adult women. Does it stop happening to children for real if the light isn't beamed on the subject? I might watch it, not going to spend the money on it in a theater though. But it does sound interesting, much in the manner of "The Color Purple". I hope it isn't just some grab for publicity as rape has been used historically in TV. Is there any program that hasn't had a major female character raped (or attempted?) when rating started drooping? One police show had a female cop raped not once... not twice... but three times. Oy vay.

If they ban the movie for any reason, there goes all the generic horror movies where all the teenages get hacked to death. No more Freddy, Jason, Saw, Psycho, Scream, I Know What You Did......................(add hundreds more here). Since everyone in those are under 21, the liberals can class them all as child abuse.............pullllleeezzze.

quote Originally posted by rogergarrison: If they ban the movie for any reason, there goes all the generic horror movies where all the teenages get hacked to death. No more Freddy, Jason, Saw, Psycho, Scream, I Know What You Did......................(add hundreds more here). Since everyone in those are under 21, the liberals can class them all as child abuse.............pullllleeezzze.

right.

because conservatives are traditionally so permissive when it comes to the depiction of sexuality and violence, especially when it involves young girls.

yah sure you betcha.

thank you for watching... this has been another installment of "Ideologues at the Movies!" tune in tomorrow on this same channel for "LoFat Moonbat Cooking", followed by "Wingnut Golf."

quote Originally posted by Patrick: Just “one short little thing in a newspaper”, eh? If you wish to discount and dismiss everything in the media, fine, but why are there are so far twenty posts in this thread, two of which are yours, if “no one really cares” about this staged rape scene? Seems to me it’s definitely struck a chord with many forum members here. And how many threads and posts do we see in this forum about all the rapes of young girls and boys which really did take place in Detroit and Vancouver last night? ....None. Maybe it’s just my perception, but I find the general public’s concern to be on the wrong incident. My earlier statement still stands. [QUOTE]Originally posted by Patrick: Isn't it ironic that a staged scene using actors in a movie seems to cause more public uproar than the real thing which occurs thousands of times a day to young girls and boys around the world?

[/QUOTE]

for the most part - yes. it is just junk for twits to twitter about.
I am quite sure if a celebrated persons daughter got raped - you would hear about it all year long. maybe even next year.
this movie - I'm sure the "uproar" (which I heard NONE of - except here) will be gone by FRIDAY
of course noone cares if MY daughter gets raped. except, of course, me & my immediate peeps

but, back to the actual junk at hand - a movie showing a kid getting raped.
at first - my feeling was - WTF, its a movie. its not real. who cares?
but, then I remembered one thing. kids. kids dont really get that. in fact - most young adults dont quite get that yet. and, I mean "get it" as in - its a movie. the people are not real. the behaviour is not real. its scripted. kids see that, and it can add to phobias. they dont show kids getting killed in movies because of this. you'll never see a kid get his brain splattered. you'll never see a kid take a machete to the chest. because it FREAKS them. even in rated R and X movies - you dont see it. Vietnam movies - famous for brutality to kids - ever see a kid get killed? you'll see dead kids. you'll see kids about to die. but, you never see them getting their wig split.

quote Originally posted by Scott-Wa: Interesting subject, Guess we need to stop using kids in films where they watch people get killed, chased by evildoers, scared

Well, I have. But I realize I am in the vast minority.

I don't like watching shows where they use a child to be the object of the drama. Like the child gets kidnapped to force the adult do something. Etc.

But, then, I don't even watch the news much anymore because I don't want to hear about this child abused and that child murdered.

Sticking my head in the sand? Not really. I care. And I would do something about it if I had opportunity. But I usually don't. So it just usually makes me sad and I can't do anything about it.

I will rue the day that I find it entertaining about a police officer, or anyone, that is raped not once or twice, but three times.

But if other people want to be entertained by that, I'm not going to stand in the way of that. The main problem I have, though, is how did you get to the point where one could watch that and be entertained instead of horrified? Now, sure, the 'horror movie' genre is supposed to be somewhat sheer fantasy. So I can see how one would dissociate from that. The ones that are supposed to be possibly 'normal' people? And people can watch that and be entertained? OK. Fine for you. I still WANT to be saddened by certain acts--real or depicted.

Original Jaws and Alien were scary. The child in the Exorsist tramatized how many people.......? It was a movie, although supposed to be based on a true event, and I found it laughable myself.......especially with her head spinning around. I dont think many people went out and tried to see if they could spin their neighbors kids heads around. Again ITS JUST A MOVIE. If you think otherwise, just how many Cyotes were killed in the making of RoadRunner cartoons / movies ??? Have any animal rights people complained that they are animal abuse.

news followup on the original item:

Dakota Fanning: 'It's called acting'

relevant excerpt:

quote The disturbing scene lasts a few minutes but is not graphic. There is no nudity, the scene is very darkly lit and only Fanning's face and hand are shown. Kampmeier said it took her a decade to get the film made, largely because of the rape scene, but cutting it was a compromise she was unwilling to make. "This issue is so silenced in our society. There are a lot of women who are alone with this story," she said. "When you're shooting a film, it's the images you line up next to each other that create a story," Kampmeier said. "If you have a hand hitting the ground, Dakota screaming 'stop' and you see a zipper unzip -- that creates a rape."

quote Originally posted by Pyrthian: Vietnam movies - famous for brutality to kids - ever see a kid get killed? you'll see dead kids. you'll see kids about to die. but, you never see them getting their wig split.

same in this case. you see "a hand hit the ground, a zipper zip, and a scream" and all you see is her face and hand. you dont really see what is going on, but you know whats happening.