Dakota Fanning Raped in Upcoming Movie

  • Thread starter Thread starter AquinaSavio
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
rayne100 said:
If this movie helps just one person to realize how horrible something like this could be, then it would be worth it.
Click to expand...
Who would not realize that child rape is horrible? I don’t think a visual is always needed to show devastation, especially with child abuse,rape, torture or murder.
 
I have lost what little respect I had for Dakota. She was wondeful as the little girl in Charlotte’s Web. Why can’t she do more family friendly films like that one?

It saddens me that the glory days of hollywood with stars like Shirley Temple and Mickey Rooney are gone.
 
I can’t find the links right now but there have been a couple of cases in the last year where a judge has slapped the hand of a child molester. This and the seemingly glib reaction of some bishops gives some indication that there are too many who do not get how devastating child molestation/child rape is.
 
deb1 said:
I think that the serialization of young children has already begun to occur.

What I fear is that, although the producers might have very commendable reasons behind this scene, if the movie is a success(even if only critically) there will be a rash of such movies.

Rather then horrifying the masses such images, overtime, will become common place and loose the ability to disgust.
Click to expand...
Not only that, the approval of such large numbers of these kind of movies will send the message loud and clear: Using children as sex objects is OK.

Then the pedophiles step up and claim their right to practice their sexual orientation…
 
Bruised_Reed said:
I can’t find the links right now but there have been a couple of cases in the last year where a judge has slapped the hand of a child molester. This and the seemingly glib reaction of some bishops gives some indication that there are too many who do not get how devastating child molestation/child rape is.
Click to expand...
I sympathize with what you are saying and I understand your viewpoint. But I think that the people who do not take child rape seriously would not be swayed by such a movie. 😦
 
BobCatholic said:
Not only that, the approval of such large numbers of these kind of movies will send the message loud and clear: Using children as sex objects is OK.

Then the pedophiles step up and claim their right to practice their sexual orientation…
Click to expand...
A few years back there was a very, very horrible book written that suggested that some children do not suffer emotionally from having sex with adults. I can’t remember the woman’s name who wrote this trash but she was on several news programs.
 
rayne100 said:
Pedophiles are no more likely to go see this movie than they are to go see a children’s movie. In fact they would be more likely to see a children’s movie, not only for the children portayed in the movie but for the children watching the movie.

It is important to remember that with pedophiles, it is not necessary for there to be graphic content. I know all to well that they are just as happy watching children get off the school bus.
Click to expand...
This is so wrong. It is important to remember with pedophiles, graphic material is huge. Their crimes start with porn and they work themselves up to the real thing. They are not just as happy watching children getting off a school bus. They become obsessed with the sexualization of children.
As far as them feeling compassion for the victim, it doesn’t happen. They want to see the victim terrorized. They crave the control it gives them.
 
There was an interesting discussion on Sean Hannity’s radio show the other day. It included a Professor and the former child actor Paul Peterson from The Donna Reed Show. Peterson brings up an excellent point about what it took for Fanning to portray that role. The many hours that is required in an emotional state such as you could imagine. She’s 12 years old! You can hear this audio by going to www.hannity.com . Go down about half way, on the right is a link to hear it.
 
Lorik said:
This is so wrong. It is important to remember with pedophiles, graphic material is huge. Their crimes start with porn and they work themselves up to the real thing. They are not just as happy watching children getting off a school bus. They become obsessed with the sexualization of children.
As far as them feeling compassion for the victim, it doesn’t happen. They want to see the victim terrorized. They crave the control it gives them.
Click to expand...
Uh excuse me, but it is not so wrong. It is what happened to me. There was no graphic material found in my situation and indeed none found in some of the others I know this has happened to. This was not in a time when that material was relatively availible. there was no internet and althought there were several pornagraphic movie theatres, non of them had child pornography.

Be careful what you assume to be true and what you assume to be false.

I reiterate, that if there is no graphic content contained in the movie, then I don’t see an issue. If there is graphic content in the movie then I have a BIG issue with it.
 
Lucania said:
There was an interesting discussion on Sean Hannity’s radio show the other day. It included a Professor and the former child actor Paul Peterson from The Donna Reed Show. Peterson brings up an excellent point about what it took for Fanning to portray that role. The many hours that is required in an emotional state such as you could imagine. She’s 12 years old! You can hear this audio by going to www.hannity.com . Go down about half way, on the right is a link to hear it.
Click to expand...
Not all actors are method actors and what one actor’s experience and methodology for getting into “character” is not necessarily another’s.
 
rayne100 said:
Not all actors are method actors and what one actor’s experience and methodology for getting into “character” is not necessarily another’s.
Click to expand...
So you are saying that Miss Fanning can play this role without any negative effects or emotions and do it convincingly? She is 12 years old.I don’t even know how she could even prepare for this role but she must as that’s what actors & actresses are paid to do, convince you that what you are seeing is life-like. Correct? Once again, what must go into preparation for her character? You may defend it until the cows come home, but I am not buying it. It just sounds wrong.
 
Interesting roster of movies we have this year. Dakota Fanning gets raped; Winona Ryder has sex with a puppet; and a documentary about a secretive group of men that has sex with horses.

This world is getting sicker by the second :mad:
 
deb1 said:
I sympathize with what you are saying and I understand your viewpoint. But I think that the people who do not take child rape seriously would not be swayed by such a movie. 😦
Click to expand...
Unfortuanately, I agree. I was posting on the fly and as I logged off I thought, “A movie like this isn’t going to change the minds of everyone who needs a thwack upside the head.” A person here and there maybe.

I maintain that movies, or our reaction to them, rather, reflect where we are spiritually, emotionally, etc. The Passion of the Christ changed a few people but most people’s reaction was a reflection of where they were already.
 
Cristiano said:
Do I need a movie be aware that rape is a terrible thing? Do I need a movie to know that child exploitation is a terible thing? Do I need movies to define my moral standards? I think that making those movies at the expense of a child is just garbage. That is the consequence of the trash TV that we (most of us) watch daily. People want a stonger fix while feeling morally justified.
Click to expand...
I am curious: would you be against a movie that protrays a woman during an abortion and also includes a 3d sonogram?

Also, are you against the movie “Schindler’s list”?

I wonder if the real argument going on over this has to do with visual people vs. auditory or kinesthetic people?
 
Since I am not involved with the making of this movie, I can’t speak from any personal inside knowledge.

BUT–I think it is quite likely that the director will use a double for the rape scene, at least for shots that show the body and that involve the rapist touching her.

The double will be a very petite woman or possibly a midget (midget stuntmen and women are very well-paid in Hollywood because they stand in for children during action scenes).

I apologize if the use of the word “midget” is offensive. I think the current preferred word is “small person” or “little person,” but I am only trying to make it crystal clear what I mean when I say double for a child. I am talking about a full-grown adult of small stature.

The facial expressions of the actress will still be filmed, but not in a “rape” scene. The scene would probably be filmed in a very pleasant setting, not on the day that the double films
the rape scene, and the director would probably tell Miss Fanning to “look terrified” or “moan like you’re in pain.” Her skill in making these facial expression and vocalizations would be what earns her the Oscar nomination.

I’m not saying I agree with the filming of this film. I personally think that we have a morbid fascination with death, rape, murder, and other grisly things, and I’m not sure we should feed that fascination. On the other hand, many of us are afraid of such things, and perhaps watching them on a TV show or movie helps us to face our fears and turn them over to the Lord.

So whether I agree or disagree isn’t the issue. I’m merely trying to point out that child actors are protected from exploitation in Hollywood. There are rules that govern what directors can and can’t ask children to do.
 
rayne100 said:
Uh excuse me, but it is not so wrong. It is what happened to me. There was no graphic material found in my situation and indeed none found in some of the others I know this has happened to. This was not in a time when that material was relatively availible. there was no internet and althought there were several pornagraphic movie theatres, non of them had child pornography.

Be careful what you assume to be true and what you assume to be false.

I reiterate, that if there is no graphic content contained in the movie, then I don’t see an issue. If there is graphic content in the movie then I have a BIG issue with it.
Click to expand...
Just b/c none was found doesn’t mean anything. 53% of offenders use porn to prepare themselves to offend. 87% of offenders are habitual viewers of porn. Almost all of offenders have been exposed to porn most under the age of 14.
The content of this movie was so graphic that a professional film crew walked off the set. There were scenes of mutual masturbation that have been “lost”. This movie is sick. Her parents should lose custody for letting it happen.
 
This thread has convinced me that I need to invest in the next, biggest commodity: SAND! So many people would be lining up to by their own, personal bucket of Strummer’s Sand, guaranteed to keep the outside world…outside.
Point 1: Little 12yr old Miss Fanning was not acutally raped; it is, in point of fact, a movie wherein many things are faked and made to appear (or, most likely, suggest) real.
Point 2: Such horrific things do happen in the ugly world we live it. Ignoring them will not make them go away and I hardly think this movie will “glorify” the act in any way.
Point 3: (following up on point 2) Viewing this (or even just hearing about it) many victims may well see that they are not alone and not to blame for this horrible scar in their past.
Point 4: Miss Fanning is of an age (and demonstratively precocious for her age) and of an environment that suggests she is hardly naive in such matters.
Point 5: NONE of us are her parents nor have sufficient knowledge of the this specific situation to pass judgment.
So, in conclusion, I would declare this a non-issue and suggest we all keep our uninformed, prejudicially biased opinions to ourselves at least until the film comes out. Then we’d at least have one aspect of this controvesy supplied with a little factual basis.
 
Strummer said:
So, in conclusion, I would declare this a non-issue and suggest we all keep our uninformed, prejudicially biased opinions to ourselves at least until the film comes out. Then we’d at least have one aspect of this controvesy supplied with a little factual basis.
Click to expand...
If we wanted to keep our opinions to ourselves, why would we post here? I noticed you didn’t mind posting. As to how un-informed or prejudicial they are, that is just an… er… opinion. Feel free to post.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top