Child rape scene causing controversy?!?

[Rolling Cloud]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16773090/?GT1=8921

Apparently, only her face, neck, shoulders, hand and foot appear onscreen.

Everything else is shadowed.

[Outlander00]

Considering it was Dakota Fannings choice to take this role (She even says in a couple of recent interviews why she decided to take thr role) and the director took the time and do it in such a way not to exploit her, I dont see a problem with it. She wants to make the point that this does actually happen and that this society tends to turn a blind eye towards it. I applaud her for wanting to use her talent as an actress to bring such issues to light.

As far as The Catholic League... I dont ever listen to those who shove their ideals and "faith" in my face :D

[Peter Paltridge]

Considering it was Dakota Fannings choice to take this role (She even says in a couple of recent interviews why she decided to take thr role) and the director took the time and do it in such a way not to exploit her, I dont see a problem with it. She wants to make the point that this does actually happen and that this society tends to turn a blind eye towards it. I applaud her for wanting to use her talent as an actress to bring such issues to light.
But the important thing to ask is, COULD a pedophile use the scene to motivate himself toward an actual rape? This is why child porn is illegal.

[JohnCrichton]

I'm not easily shaken, so if this makes me kinda uncomfortable to even think of, I'm pretty sure bible thumpers and soccer moms are going to riot in the streets and kill anything that moves for the sake of the children.

[Peter Paltridge]

I'm not easily shaken, so if this makes me kinda uncomfortable to even think of, I'm pretty sure bible thumpers and soccer moms are going to riot in the streets and kill anything that moves for the sake of the children.
And I'm sick of this prejudice and hatred toward the right....IT'S FROM SUNDANCE. You think it's gonna be released nationwide and have Happy Meals based on it? At best it can hope for a limited theater run like most independent and foreign films get. And when it's that small, the pervs can have it to themselves and nobody cares.

[TheMecca]

Oh yeah the movie where Dakota Fanning gets raped.
Isn't this the same festival that brings us that movie about people who have sex with animals and the horror film about a woman whose vagina has teeth?
Really now.

[Hades]

Eh, it has Dakota Fanning in it, so I wouldn't be able to stomach the movie anyway. I can care less about the child rape scene.

[Sandoz]

But the important thing to ask is, COULD a pedophile use the scene to motivate himself toward an actual rape? This is why child porn is illegal.
I don't know, do the Friday the 13th movies inspire murderers to kill horny camp counselors? Murder is illegal; should we ban all films that feature murder so as to not encourage psycopaths?

I won't deny that this movie's description gives me an icky feeling, but it sounds like the director took great care to make sure the film didn't cross the line. I'm more unsettled by Dakota Fanning's mother's idea that:

1. Rape scene
2. ????
3. Oscar!

After all, Abigail Breslin certainly didn't "need" anything like that to get an Oscar nom. And there really shouldn't be a rush to get a 12-year-old girl an Oscar, since it's no guarantee that her career will continue to move forward and be successful. (Tatum O'Neil, anyone?)

[Outlander00]

But the important thing to ask is, COULD a pedophile use the scene to motivate himself toward an actual rape?

Considering, if it is sold to a studio and distributed, that it would have to go through the MPAA for rating and most directors... No. It wont. If anyone believe that it could should just find a rock to crawl under and stay there. This type of stuff happens... period. The piece, on top of being a piece of art, has a message. I dont think the director or the producers would put a piece out there that is candy for pedophiles. Give people credit here.


This is why child porn is illegal.

And this is why childish comments only make the person who says them look immature.

[Ragebot]

I'm more unsettled by Dakota Fanning's mother's idea that:

1. Rape scene
2. ????
3. Oscar!

Yeah, that's exactly what I was thinking as well. Though, I imagine that it was completely Fanning's decision to take the role and that she realized the implications of it.

My (rhetorical) question is: If the movie actually shows her naked in any way, then what kind audience could the filmmakers possibly be serving?

[DisneyBoy]

They were talking about this today on the View. As Rosie pointed out "Dakota's an actress." She knew about the role, and the scene, and did it because she wanted to.

[PeterFries]

It sounds like kind of a rough movie to sit through from that article, since I have an 11 year old daughter.

On the other hand, I don't see why there's more of a fuss over this than the movies that come out every month with people being gorily tortured to death, like Hostel or Saw.

[Stuckey]

Considering it was Dakota Fannings choice to take this role


Though, I imagine that it was completely Fanning's decision to take the role and that she realized the implications of it.



They were talking about this today on the View. As Rosie pointed out "Dakota's an actress." She knew about the role, and the scene, and did it because she wanted to.

You've got to be kidding me. She's twelve.


On the other hand, I don't see why there's more of a fuss over this than the movies that come out every month with people being gorily tortured to death, like Hostel or Saw.

Sex is bad; violence is entertainment. Or so we're lead to believe.

[RD!]

Oh yeah the movie where Dakota Fanning gets raped.Is this the only reason people are in a tizzy over this? Three years ago Mysterious Skin (http://imdb.com/title/tt0370986/) came out and was a very dark and haunting portrayal of two kids whose lives were destroyed in different ways as a result of their being molested. It was an extremely uncomfortable and sad film, and through some clever camera tricks the molestation scenes are nearly more than implied. It was a very powerful film I'd recommend if you can stand to be a little uncomfortable.

With L.I.E. a few years back and Hard Candy coming out last year I can't help but think Dakota Fanning is just hopping on something that's probably been done better before in hopes of shocking her way into an Oscar nomination.

This has been a post by RD, your resident pedophile movie expert. =[

[Stuckey]

Doesn't BASTARD OUT OF CAROLINA have a relatively brutal child rape scene? Regardless, I won't see the movie, but it's not because of the scene in question. The movie doesn't sound interesting.

I'm sure if it's as bad as those who are riled up seem to think it is we'd never see this movie get a legit release.

[TheMecca]

Is this the only reason people are in a tizzy over this?
Yeah, it is.
Y'know what made me laugh is this selection:

The movie by writer/director Deborah Kampmeir received a storm of complaints before the festival from groups concerned about a scene in which a 12-year-old girl named Lewellen is raped by a teen-age boy. The groups had not yet seen the film.

[Stuckey]

Of course they haven't seen it. The more outraged people are the less likely it is they are familiar with what they're outraged about.

[Ragebot]

You've got to be kidding me. She's twelve.

For Taxi Driver, 12-year-old Jodie Foster had to undergo psychological analysis to determine if she would understand and be comfortable in her role as a prostitute. I'd imagine it would be the same case with Fanning.

[Stuckey]

That's terrific.

[Tay the Cat]

Doesn't BASTARD OUT OF CAROLINA have a relatively brutal child rape scene?

No, just physical and verbal abuse.

[Stuckey]

No, just physical and verbal abuse.


How sure are you? There are references to a rape scene and the male actor being "pulled off" Bone by her mother over on IMDB and I vaguely remember at least an attempted rape, but it's been so long since I've seen the movie that I could be projecting the non-sexual abuse onto the sexual abuse and remembering it as more brutal/graphic than it is.

[Jacob T. Paschal]

Seriously, who would want to make this kind of trash? Child rape? We should already know exploiting the kids like that is wrong, we don't need to see a little girl playing a role like that in a film.

[Bird Boy]

Try to keep the personal attacks and general comments to a low level guys. It's a heated issue but it doesn't need to become one in here too.

-BB

[DarkAngel]

How sure are you? There are references to a rape scene and the male actor being "pulled off" Bone by her mother over on IMDB and I vaguely remember at least an attempted rape, but it's been so long since I've seen the movie that I could be projecting the non-sexual abuse onto the sexual abuse and remembering it as more brutal/graphic than it is.
You're correct. The mother returned home to find him raping her daughter and pulled him off.

[Scorpio_G]

No, just physical and verbal abuse.

Uh no. There was molestation/rape scenes. I should know, I've seen that movie at Dakota's age and I dont ever want to see it again. :shrug:

[James]

Seriously, who would want to make this kind of trash? Child rape? We should already know exploiting the kids like that is wrong, we don't need to see a little girl playing a role like that in a film.

I think people need to give credit to 12 year olds. I knew - as did my entire year - what child rape was at 12. Certainly no one wanted to be a part of such activity, but didn't mean we were dumb enough not to know the psychological and practical implications of such an occurance.

I think people need to stop belittling the actresses intelligence and maturity on this. This happens people. Kid's are raped and molested far more than we'd like to think about, from her perspective - as with most serious acting roles - it's quite likely an honour to be able to showcase such an intense and real experience.

Is it necessary? Don't know without watching the film, but as with all DRAMA, it's about the fragile psyche and our interaction with others played around scenes that the audience can empathise with. You can't get more dramatic than such issues and these are real issues that happen to people in real life.

If you don't want to see it - or don't agree with it - don't watch it. But to condone this as some sort of material that will filter through to pedophiles is insulting without any context or understanding of such spheres. We need to stop being knee jerk reactors and if we're so concerned about pedophilia, we make more practical efforts to get involved in the prevention and protection of children rather than righteously spitting disgust at a film we've not seen.

[sun]

I don't know, do the Friday the 13th movies inspire murderers to kill horny camp counselors? Murder is illegal; should we ban all films that feature murder so as to not encourage psycopaths?

I won't deny that this movie's description gives me an icky feeling, but it sounds like the director took great care to make sure the film didn't cross the line. I'm more unsettled by Dakota Fanning's mother's idea that:

1. Rape scene
2. ????
3. Oscar!

After all, Abigail Breslin certainly didn't "need" anything like that to get an Oscar nom. And there really shouldn't be a rush to get a 12-year-old girl an Oscar, since it's no guarantee that her career will continue to move forward and be successful. (Tatum O'Neil, anyone?)

..In the end, it is a freedom of speech issue.. If the distributors and the Film Board want to really make sure that this is restricted to so called adults for viewing............make it a NC-17 film..........
...Perhaps that will happen...but don't bet on it..NC-17 films, draw a whole lot "less" money than R films.....Or the scene might be deleted for a wide spread distribution plan..but I wouldn't count on that either.......sun

[Frank Castle]

The movie sounds disgusting and I think Dakota should use better judgment when choosing roles for movies. That's all I'm gonna say.

[Jave]

..In the end, it is a freedom of speech issue.. If the distributors and the Film Board want to really make sure that this is restricted to so called adults for viewing............make it a NC-17 film..........
...Perhaps that will happen...but don't bet on it..NC-17 films, draw a whole lot "less" money than R films.....Or the scene might be deleted for a wide spread distribution plan..but I wouldn't count on that either.......sun
Don't quote me on this, but I don't think a movie with minors (less than 18 years old) among the cast can be rated NC-17.

[Mr. Manager]

This controversy wouldn't be happening it this wasn't Dakota Fanning. I didn't hear anything like this when Hard Candy came out.

The only place I saw talking about it was Attack of the Show.

. . .

Don't look at me like that. I was channel surfing.

[Stuckey]

Nevermind. It's too ridiculous to even dispute.

[Leaping Larry Jojo]

I wouldn't feel so negative if I didn't hear that Fanning's camp wanted this role for her for Oscar-winning intentions.

[Tapout]

It can't be any worse than the scene in the beginning of A Time to Kill. This has been done before and it'll be done again. It's only being made a big deal of because this time it's a famous child actor. The only problem I have is that it's quite possible that Dakota and/or her parents/handlers are using it to gain an award.

[Master Moron]

The movie by writer/director Deborah Kampmeir received a storm of complaints before the festival from groups concerned about a scene in which a 12-year-old girl named Lewellen is raped by a teen-age boy. The groups had not yet seen the film.

If I may use a joke from the Daily Show, I haven't actually read their complaint, but it's the stupidest complaint I've ever read.

[PeppeRaskell1]

Before she won the Oscar for Boys Don't Cry, Hilary Swank starred in a piece of popcorn fluff called The Next Karate Kid. Jodie Foster did a lot of cutesy, clean Disney movies before Taxi Driver. And Dakota Fanning's done quite a bit of popcorn fluff, too, and maybe wants to start doing more serious stuff.

[SirLemming]

There are so many things I could say, but I think I'm just gonna stick with the easy one:

Why does the title of this topic make it sound like it's shocking that a child rape scene would cause controversy?

[Hanshotfirst113]

If I may use a joke from the Daily Show, I haven't actually read their complaint, but it's the stupidest complaint I've ever read.

Really, no kidding. Shouldn't people criticizing a film have actually seen it?

[TheMecca]

Does anybody realize that this is the Sundance festival, a festival for films without (and looking for) distributors?

[Noukon]

Seriously, who would want to make this kind of trash? Child rape? We should already know exploiting the kids like that is wrong, we don't need to see a little girl playing a role like that in a film.

This is exactly the problem -- this perception that this is "trash" and "exploitation" is flat-out wrong. This film was not created as an avenue to get away with portraying such a rape scene; rather, the scene itself is a brutal statement intended to evoke a strong reaction from the viewer.

We're not talking about pornography here.

[Jacob T. Paschal]

This is exactly the problem -- this perception that this is "trash" and "exploitation" is flat-out wrong. This film was not created as an avenue to get away with portraying such a rape scene; rather, the scene itself is a brutal statement intended to evoke a strong reaction from the viewer.

We're not talking about pornography here.

But the thing is people already know the stuff is bad, they watch The Factor, SVU, etc.

But then again, I don't know all...

[Sandoz]

But the thing is people already know the stuff is bad, they watch The Factor, SVU, etc.
An important distinction is that in the film the audience is experiencing this through the eyes of the victim as it happens, rather than from the perspective of investigators after the worst is over.

Hopefully every SVU viewer already knows that rape is wrong. However, it sounds as if the filmmakers are trying to convey the horror of the act (and arouse sympathy and understanding from those who have never experienced it) in a way that those shows can't.

[Noukon]

But the thing is people already know the stuff is bad, they watch The Factor, SVU, etc.

But then again, I don't know all...

Don't think of it as a message, think of it as a piece of brutal storytelling designed to play on our knowledge that the act is absolutely reprehensible and, thus, illicit a strong emotional reaction.

[Simon Trent]

The real issue people should be concerned with: Is Dakota Fanning getting too sarcastic too soon? I mean, there were like four quotes from her in that article and two of them were at least borderline sneering. I'd hate to see how she'd react when she finds out that controversy is going to spiral around her again and again until her career is destroyed or she limits her acting to G-rated roles on pancake commercials.

[Silly McGooses]

Why wasn't there any of this controversy when 10-year-old Cameron Bright was naked in a tub with Nicole Kidman in Birth? Or any film other than Houndog that deals with child abuse?

[ClockStomper]

In the end, it's most likley the people behind the movie stoking the flames of controversy to generate buzz.

[Damien]

Why wasn't there any of this controversy when 10-year-old Cameron Bright was naked in a tub with Nicole Kidman in Birth?
Because you don't remember it. It was there, though.

I doubt they did any psychological humdrum like they did with Jodie Foster. These days, for some dumb reason, people think kids can make their own decisions about such things. "She's an actress." So? She's a kid. And her acting is annoying, but that's not the issue here.
Anyway, there's no reason to show anything, any part of it. Plenty of movies have just referred to wrong-doings rather than show them. Anything else is for shock value.

[SilverKnight]

Seriously, who would want to make this kind of trash? Child rape? We should already know exploiting the kids like that is wrong, we don't need to see a little girl playing a role like that in a film.It's that exact mindset I believe the director is trying to combat. "We already know it exists, ohmigawd, stop shoving in our faces!" Of course. Naturally. Because blockbuster movies are just saturated with references of child rape and abuse, right? Because it sells, right? Not that silly exploitation of women in which they're usually only seen as pretty things for the male population to look at, or the ZOMG explosions and special effects, or the big names.

Oh wait. Yeah, that's right; it gets lambasted by every child advocacy group in the nation and blacklisted by close-minded soccer moms everywhere because it's 'exploitation' and not trying to highlight something people don't want to confront. Child rape is not trash, my friend, and the very notion that you would turn your nose up in disgust and disregard something that's trying to get your attention on a serious issue that has been known to destroy families for generations (speaking from personal experience, by the way; thank you very much), says more about you than it does the people making the film.

But hey, don't take my word for it. Talk to someone that was raped as a kid and watch them try to struggle for the rest of their lives to put it behind them. It's a regular laugh riot.

[Lutochris]

Because you don't remember it. It was there, though.

I doubt they did any psychological humdrum like they did with Jodie Foster. These days, for some dumb reason, people think kids can make their own decisions about such things. "She's an actress." So? She's a kid. And her acting is annoying, but that's not the issue here.
Anyway, there's no reason to show anything, any part of it. Plenty of movies have just referred to wrong-doings rather than show them. Anything else is for shock value.

Okay, then why bother showing the bloody battle scenes in a war movie like Saving Private Ryan? Why not just "talk" about how horrific the battle was instead of showing the people getting their limbs blown off? I guess that scene was just for "shock value", and how dare Speilberg show something so gratuitous, right?

Such scenes ARE intended to shock the viewer, but to say they're ony there for "shock value" is idiotic.

[Mog]

SK pretty much summarized my view. Child porn/rape/molestation is a big problem, but is it ever on the news? No. The only media reference to it has been L&O:SVU, which I don't believe is a media outlet the likes of CNN/MSNBC.

Besides, the scene mentioned was done with many, many people monitoring the event, including multiple child advocacy professionals. Nothing illegal was done.

[jv2k]

You've got to be kidding me. She's twelve.



Sex is bad; violence is entertainment. Or so we're lead to believe.

You really have to give kids more credit. At 12 years old I already knew about this stuff and so did my other peers. People are constantly underestimating 10-12 year. They are smarter and know more than people give them credit for.


Okay, then why bother showing the bloody battle scenes in a war movie like Saving Private Ryan? Why not just "talk" about how horrific the battle was instead of showing the people getting their limbs blown off? I guess that scene was just for "shock value", and how dare Speilberg show something so gratuitous, right?


Such scenes ARE intended to shock the viewer, but to say they're only there for "shock value" is idiotic.

Saving Private Ryan is a war movie and people go to war movies to see the action, violence, and gore. The movie in question is a drama and people watch dramas for the character development and the situations. I really do not see why a graphic rape scene is necessary. They could imply it, show the early stages and cut away but we don't need to see the girl bounce.
The scene is there for no other reason but for shock value.

Let's go back to your analogy. Saving Private Ryan wasn't the first gory movie. The movie industry has been showing gore for the past few decades and it has reached much worse levels than Saving Private Ryan. We have shelves full of movies like that in Blockbusters and video stores. We don't have shelves of movies in that explicitly show little girls getting raped on screen. It is only there for shock value and possibly publicity nothing else. If it isn't the only reason it's there what are the other reasons?

[Sandoz]

They could imply it, show the early stages and cut away but we don't need to see the girl bounce.
The scene is there for no other reason but for shock value.
Did you read the description of the scene? All you see are her face and her hand. Her body isn't seen at all. This is not Irreversible 2.


We don't have shelves of movies in that explicitly show little girls getting raped on screen. It is only there for shock value and possibly publicity nothing else. If it isn't the only reason it's there what are the other reasons?We might not have shelves of movies with that subject matter, but Hound Dog is not the first movie to feature child molestation/rape or even show it on screen.

Shocking =/= Gratuitious. Rape is shocking. The scene in question is intended to be shocking. That does not mean that it is "unnecessary" or unimportant to the story, since the film is about the cycle and nature of abuse. To cut the abuse or only "imply" it would neuter the film. The film is about confronting rape rather than turning away from it or being happy that it happens only in dark corners of the world where we can't see it with our own eyes. If the movie censored itself it would be hypocritical and empty.

[Conan-san]

But the important thing to ask is, COULD a pedophile use the scene to motivate himself toward an actual rape? This is why child porn is illegal.Pedos get off on less and, to rush stright into a Slippery slope arugment, should we ban everything that Pedos could get off with?

This film wasn't CP, the scene isn't CP and is not even intended to be sexualy arousing and that's the end point.

[wonderfly]

Oh wait. Yeah, that's right; it gets lambasted by every child advocacy group in the nation and blacklisted by close-minded soccer moms everywhere because it's 'exploitation' and not trying to highlight something people don't want to confront. Child rape is not trash, my friend, and the very notion that you would turn your nose up in disgust and disregard something that's trying to get your attention on a serious issue that has been known to destroy families for generations (speaking from personal experience, by the way; thank you very much), says more about you than it does the people making the film.


The only concern I have, (as others have mentioned) is the possibility that Dakota Fanning is doing this just to win an Oscar, (or her parents put her up to this just to win an Oscar) beyond that, I for the most part don't care. I'll form more of an opinion once I see a preview for the movie, but so far, it doesn't sound like it would interest me.

But to hold your personal experience up and belittle any others who have a different opinion is just wrong. I have someone who is very close to me confide in me their own childhood ordeal, and having discussed this topic with that person, that person made it known they don't wish to see movies like this put out, (as they believe it to be exploitive as well). And as far as "disgust and disregard" is concerned, people who don't want to see this film produced and released may indeed see it as disgusting, but I don't believe they feel they are disregarding the topic. And this belief doesn't make them "soccer moms" either.

[Bird Boy]

In 3 pages I think we covered the major viewpoints. This thread will just continue to get messier if it goes on.

-BB