WTF??? Dakota Fanning to do nude scenes and portray rape victim

[PICK3]

I know she's a mature little girl, but she just turned 12.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/gossip/story/436553p-367837c.html

 

[_n8o_]

thats just wrong

 

[PICK3]

Aren't there child porn laws?

 

[MsBeverlyHills]

I know she's a mature little girl, but she just turned 12.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/gossip/story/436553p-367837c.html

"Fanning's mother, Joy, and her Hollywood agent, Cindy Osbrink, see the movie as a possible Oscar vehicle for the pint-size star."

they dont care- a 12 y.o. Oscar winner makes more $$$ for Mommy.

 

[heatherrae]

I doubt they will show anything.

god, that would be hard to play the rapist and have that little child actress screaming.

 

[PICK3]

I doubt they will show anything.

god, that would be hard to play the rapist and have that little child actress screaming.

The article said there were nude & undies only scenes.

Gonna be alot of perves in raincoats at the theatres.

 

[Lao Tzu]

I think its good. We live in a culture where 90-95% of child molestation victims don't tell anyone. Perhaps graphic images and/or the mainstream media are what we need to desensitize ourselves to the subject. Until we can face it head on we'll just keep pretending it isn't happening.

 

[megamania500]

Perhaps graphic images and/or the mainstream media are what we need to desensitize ourselves to the subject.

Perhaps. But I disagree. First of all, who wants to be desensitized to this stuff in the first place? Look at how today's kids are desensitized to violence because of movies, video games, tv, and other media. If someone never saw a tv and then all of a sudden watched tv and saw someone murdered on a movie, it would probably be disturbing to them. But after watching tv all their lives, seeing someone murdered on tv means nothing. Is it healthy to be "desensitized" to something?
Second, back in the day, schools used to show graphic images of auto accidents in driver's education classes as a deterrent to drinking and driving. But research has shown that this shock value did nothing to deter the problem. I don't need to see graphic images of this stuff to already be repulsed and sickened by it. I know killing is wrong, too. I don't need to watch murders, even if it is just actors on tv, actually happening to verify that.

I think this is just another example of sick shit that has been progressively coming out of Hollywood for decades, but in too small of pieces for anyone to consciously notice. The public hasn't asked for it, but they still bring it. The public feels apprehension and anxiety for its presence, but eventually accepts it. Then Hollywood comes out with an even bigger version of what it started out with, and the public goes through the same thing. And it keeps going. Eventually we are "desensitized" to whatever it is; but if the latest version was created in the beginning, everyone would be in an uproar. Some people feel that we are just getting more mature and tolerant in our views, but I feel that this tolerance just doesn't feel right, deep down inside. Should we be watching movies about things like murder, and enjoying it? I don't know. I just hope that this movie doesn't open doors for other movies like it, but more focused about the subject. If so, in 20 or 30 years we may be seeing a movie about a love affair between an adult and a child, and we will be accepting the story because we've progressively been "desensitized" to the subject. Hopefully, we won't let it go that far. But "Animal House" was pretty raunchy when it came out. But "Fast Times at Ridgemont High" was a step up from that. But "American Pie" put them both to shame. Now, if "American Pie" came out when "Animal House" did, what would people have thought? Would they have been desensitized enough to accept it?

 

[heatherrae]

I'll reserve judgment until I see how sensitively they handle the subject matter. I think it may be good to give these problem a face in the collective minds of America. It may bring the problem to the forefront.

 

[Lao Tzu]

Perhaps. But I disagree. First of all, who wants to be desensitized to this stuff in the first place? Look at how today's kids are desensitized to violence because of movies, video games, tv, and other media. If someone never saw a tv and then all of a sudden watched tv and saw someone murdered on a movie, it would probably be disturbing to them. But after watching tv all their lives, seeing someone murdered on tv means nothing. Is it healthy to be "desensitized" to something?
Second, back in the day, schools used to show graphic images of auto accidents in driver's education classes as a deterrent to drinking and driving. But research has shown that this shock value did nothing to deter the problem. I don't need to see graphic images of this stuff to already be repulsed and sickened by it. I know killing is wrong, too. I don't need to watch murders, even if it is just actors on tv, actually happening to verify that.

I think this is just another example of sick shit that has been progressively coming out of Hollywood for decades, but in too small of pieces for anyone to consciously notice. The public hasn't asked for it, but they still bring it. The public feels apprehension and anxiety for its presence, but eventually accepts it. Then Hollywood comes out with an even bigger version of what it started out with, and the public goes through the same thing. And it keeps going. Eventually we are "desensitized" to whatever it is; but if the latest version was created in the beginning, everyone would be in an uproar. Some people feel that we are just getting more mature and tolerant in our views, but I feel that this tolerance just doesn't feel right, deep down inside. Should we be watching movies about things like murder, and enjoying it? I don't know. I just hope that this movie doesn't open doors for other movies like it, but more focused about the subject. If so, in 20 or 30 years we may be seeing a movie about a love affair between an adult and a child, and we will be accepting the story because we've progressively been "desensitized" to the subject. Hopefully, we won't let it go that far. But "Animal House" was pretty raunchy when it came out. But "Fast Times at Ridgemont High" was a step up from that. But "American Pie" put them both to shame. Now, if "American Pie" came out when "Animal House" did, what would people have thought? Would they have been desensitized enough to accept it?

Your view may be that we are devling deeper and deeper into a disgusting culture. That Hollywood is always trying to find more shock value to sell more tickets. Mine isn't.

As I see it we as a society have denied and lied about child molestation for centuries. Most people are content telling themselves 'my kids aren't being molested and most child molesters are disgusting weirdos I've never met before who have criminal records. The reality is most molesters are parents, uncles, aunts, grandparents, friends, family friends, cousins, etc. and about 10-20% of children are molested.

I have heard from several victims that when they finally did have the courage to tell their parents that their parents ignored them or tried to pretend it didn't happen.

If this movie helps change that attitude then great.

I was recently watching an AIDS documentary on PBS. They were talking about how for the first 10-15 years of AIDS nobody wanted to admit it existed. As long as only 'those disgusting people who I'll never meet or be (ie drug users, gay people, prostitutes) are getting it I don't want to know about it'. Then Rock Hudson got it and that pushed it into the mainstream. Now we openly talk about HIV and even Africa is moving to fight stigma on HIV. Same with molestation. As long as only 'other peoples kids' are being molested and they are only bering molested by 'creepy convicted child molesters' then people are comfortable ignoring it. The real world is totally different though.

We need a society that is mature enough to discuss sexuality openly, not one that tries to pretend sexuality doesn't exist. THat is the mentality I don't agree with because when you go through life pretending human sexuality doesn't exist how you are going to responsbily discuss STDs, molestation, rape, etc?

 

[PICK3]

my concern is it will have the opposite results, e.g. life imitating art.

Something like pumping Cop Killing lyrics to the feeble minded.

 

[Lao Tzu]

my concern is it will have the opposite results, e.g. life imitating art.

Something like pumping Cop Killing lyrics to the feeble minded.

I guess there is no way of telling what it'll do. But I do know that we currently have very open & frank impressions of sex in modern culture. Women dress like prostitutes, you can sell tampons on TV, etc. There is bad to that but there is good too. Most people know what a condom is and how HIV is transmitted. In Africa because people are uptight nobody is willing to discuss things like HIV, as a result it runs unchecked behind closed doors. As a result in some countries you have HIV rates of 25% or higher.

 

[PICK3]

Well I guess the other issue is the reason the Fanning camp took the role.

Is it for altruistic reasons to educate about child abuse, or is it just a self serving move to try to obtain the Oscar?

 

[hotzie]

in

 

[PICK3]

in

lol! what took you so long?

 

[digger]

Jodie Foster was in "The Little Girl Who Lives Down The Lane" at 14 or so, and her older sister stood in during the one scene that called for her to get felt up. (Good flick -- interesting premise, really made me aware of her acting skills.)

Then you have "Pretty Baby," Brooke Shields' attempt at something similar to what's described above. Doesn't seem to have scarred her for life, but it didn't make people take "Blue Lagoon" any more seriously, either.

 

[PICK3]

Jodie Foster was in "The Little Girl Who Lives Down The Lane" at 14 or so, and her older sister stood in during the one scene that called for her to get felt up. (Good flick -- interesting premise, really made me aware of her acting skills.)

Then you have "Pretty Baby," Brooke Shields' attempt at something similar to what's described above. Doesn't seem to have scarred her for life, but it didn't make people take "Blue Lagoon" any more seriously, either.

I don't believe you can compare "getting felt up" or swiming around some exotic lagoon with your shirt off to a 12 y.o. (who looks younger) getting abused and raped.

 

[heatherrae]

Jodie Foster was in "The Little Girl Who Lives Down The Lane" at 14 or so, and her older sister stood in during the one scene that called for her to get felt up. (Good flick -- interesting premise, really made me aware of her acting skills.)

Then you have "Pretty Baby," Brooke Shields' attempt at something similar to what's described above. Doesn't seem to have scarred her for life, but it didn't make people take "Blue Lagoon" any more seriously, either.

Also Taxi cab driver...where she played the underage prostitute. She was billiant, even at that age.

 

[TC2]

I think its good. We live in a culture where 90-95% of child molestation victims don't tell anyone. Perhaps graphic images and/or the mainstream media are what we need to desensitize ourselves to the subject. Until we can face it head on we'll just keep pretending it isn't happening.

I agree, I think the only reason we as a society don't hunt down and kill child molesters like they used to in the old days is that people sorta look the other way and cant bear to see it.

 

[eat big]

Jodie Foster was in "The Little Girl Who Lives Down The Lane" at 14 or so, and her older sister stood in during the one scene that called for her to get felt up. (Good flick -- interesting premise, really made me aware of her acting skills.)

Then you have "Pretty Baby," Brooke Shields' attempt at something similar to what's described above. Doesn't seem to have scarred her for life, but it didn't make people take "Blue Lagoon" any more seriously, either.

Taxi Driver too.

 

[PICK3]

Taxi Driver too.

Yeah ... that's what HR meant when she said "taxi cab driver", lol!

 

[Wulfgar]

I doubt they will show anything.

god, that would be hard to play the rapist and have that little child actress screaming.

Id hit it
If theres grass on the field play ball, if not, turn her over and play in the mud

 

[heatherrae]

Yeah ... that's what HR meant when she said "taxi cab driver", lol!

LOL...that is what I meant. DUH, that was silly of me to type.

=-)

 

[heatherrae]

Id hit it
If theres grass on the field play ball, if not, turn her over and play in the mud

EEECCCKKKK!

 

[Wulfgar]

EEECCCKKKK!

post nudes

 

[PICK3]

LOL...that is what I meant. DUH, that was silly of me to type.

=-)

I knew ... just picking, lol!

 

[Cutiebaby]

I think she is a cute little girl.Wonder how it will come out!

 

[healother]

I hear Peter North will be playing the role of the male actor.

 

[Extra_Strong]

Perhaps. But I disagree. First of all, who wants to be desensitized to this stuff in the first place? Look at how today's kids are desensitized to violence because of movies, video games, tv, and other media. If someone never saw a tv and then all of a sudden watched tv and saw someone murdered on a movie, it would probably be disturbing to them. But after watching tv all their lives, seeing someone murdered on tv means nothing. Is it healthy to be "desensitized" to something?
Second, back in the day, schools used to show graphic images of auto accidents in driver's education classes as a deterrent to drinking and driving. But research has shown that this shock value did nothing to deter the problem. I don't need to see graphic images of this stuff to already be repulsed and sickened by it. I know killing is wrong, too. I don't need to watch murders, even if it is just actors on tv, actually happening to verify that.

I think this is just another example of sick shit that has been progressively coming out of Hollywood for decades, but in too small of pieces for anyone to consciously notice. The public hasn't asked for it, but they still bring it. The public feels apprehension and anxiety for its presence, but eventually accepts it. Then Hollywood comes out with an even bigger version of what it started out with, and the public goes through the same thing. And it keeps going. Eventually we are "desensitized" to whatever it is; but if the latest version was created in the beginning, everyone would be in an uproar. Some people feel that we are just getting more mature and tolerant in our views, but I feel that this tolerance just doesn't feel right, deep down inside. Should we be watching movies about things like murder, and enjoying it? I don't know. I just hope that this movie doesn't open doors for other movies like it, but more focused about the subject. If so, in 20 or 30 years we may be seeing a movie about a love affair between an adult and a child, and we will be accepting the story because we've progressively been "desensitized" to the subject. Hopefully, we won't let it go that far. But "Animal House" was pretty raunchy when it came out. But "Fast Times at Ridgemont High" was a step up from that. But "American Pie" put them both to shame. Now, if "American Pie" came out when "Animal House" did, what would people have thought? Would they have been desensitized enough to accept it?

i am pretty sure any person that as seen murder on TV that doent not respond much. compared to seeing a person shot in realy life is a little different.

but it is true that if when you were born and everyone was nude you would notgive a shit about it. same and haveing a so called dirty mouth.

it is only what you make of it.

 

[HiDnGoD]

I like Robert A. Heinlein. You should read his works on future societies.
Current American fundamentalism mirrors one of his story lines.
I'd say 70% of all women I've spoken with on the subject have been sexually assaulted in one way or another. All but one, were by relatives, or friends. About 1/2 of those were as children. I also know 3 guys that were sexually assaulted as children.