Dakota Fanning Raped in Upcoming Movie

[Spirithound]

You must not understand the dangers of censorship, Facism, etc. Its not the movies per se, its my right to choose, not some random person or board or GOVT body. Not a waste at all. What bugs me is that many people are weak and want things banned just to protect them from their own selves. The only thing I coukd support in that manner is online pornography and the removal of its temptation. Its severe and calls for that measure…but mainstream movies? NO WAY Use some will power if movies scandalize you.

Your right to choose? Interesting choice of words…So, you’re against online pornography, but you’re in favour of this rape scene? How far does the scene have to go before you’ll object? Do you feel it’s right to see her nipples? How about her butt? Or do you just want to see her crying face?

 

[Strummer]

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.

Touche’!

However, I would point out that I was commenting on the various posters’ comments whereas they were (for the most part) commenting the the subject of Ms. Fanning’s upcoming movie which is, as of yet, unseen by any of them.

 

[Strummer]

Your right to choose? Interesting choice of words…So, you’re against online pornography, but you’re in favour of this rape scene? How far does the scene have to go before you’ll object? Do you feel it’s right to see her nipples? How about her butt? Or** do you just want to see her crying face**?

To presume that anyone would “want to see her crying face” broaches decorum and should be avoided. What is being discussed here is the necessity of the “rape scene” and the extent the filmmakers might go in communicating that act. To suggest that such vileness would serve the purient interests of another poster is but a sad display of petty calumny.

 

[Lorik]

To presume that anyone would “want to see her crying face” broaches decorum and should be avoided. What is being discussed here is the necessity of the “rape scene” and the extent the filmmakers might go in communicating that act. To suggest that such vileness would serve the purient interests of another poster is but a sad display of petty calumny.

There is no “necessity” of a rape scene. They could have shown a closed door and used a soundtrack and made their point. The girl is 12! She wouldn’t be allowed to work at McDonald’s in any state of this country b/c the law forbids it. The law forbids it b/c children shouldn’t be taken advantage of. Yet it’s legal for her to simulate being raped. Something is very wrong with that.

 

[deb1]

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?

Its because a child is involved that many of us are offended. I have nothing against Jodie Foster for portraying a rape victim in the movie Accused, although really I could have done without the rape scene. In fact that was one scene that I would like out of my brain. But Miss Foster was an adult.

There is a part of me that wonders if the controversy over this movie isn’t being purposely generated by the producers themselves.

I know that the people involved in the movie have refused to release snippets of the scene in question and wouldn’t go on Hannity and Colmes to discuss their movie. This struck me as odd. Why be so secretive unless your attempting to keep people guessing?

Perhaps we are all being manipulated so that the prodcuers can get people curious enough to watch the movie. The only synopsis I can find about the movie sounds a bit boring after all, “Girl finds solace through listening to Elvis Presley music.”

 

[a_priori]

Only in 21st century America could you have a debate about the appropriateness of a child rape scene.

I’ll go out on a limb here…

God doesn’t want children raped or cinemagraphic portrayals of children (or anyone else) being raped.

“Finally, brethren, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is of good repute, if there is any excellence and if anything worthy of praise, dwell on these things.” Philippians 4:8

BTW, a rape scene cannot be “tasteful” and it cannot be rationalized as a means to achieve some higher understanding. It is what it portays, ugliness. No NEW lessons to be learned at all through this type of depiction.

 

[deb1]

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.

No one is arguing that the Dakota is being actually raped. Please do not insult our intelligence.You might disagree with some views but you can do so politely without sarcasm.

I don’t agree with some of the posters regarding this movie but I can be respectful and try and understand their point of view. That doesn’t mean that I agree but I can disagree without being caustic.

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.

No one is ingoring the fact that child rape occurs. Many of us are opposed to this movie because we understand that we live in a society that is begining to sexualize young children. We worry that instead of helping such children the movie might have the opposite effect.

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.

I can understand this view best of all. I love the comedian Christopher Titus because his family life sounds so similar to mine. But I am concerned that the good this movie might do will be outweighed by the bad. Also, I am guessing that this movie will get a R rating which will prevent young kids who are currently being abused from seeing it anyway.

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.

We only know what her agents and the movie producers tell us. We have no idea what is occuring in the young girl’s soul. Remember Drew Barrymore? She seemed pretty level headed when she was young but apparently that was not so.

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.

It has already been pointed out that people are voicing their opinion, something that we have a right to voice.

 

[AquinaSavio]

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.

So…because she isn’t raped, the whole thing is ok? Sorry, that doesn’t justify having this scene.

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.

Do you think we aren’t constantly reminded of the corruption in our world? We’re not ignoring it…we’re opposing it. Getting such a young girl used to sex scenes is not going to promote a better society.

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.

I don’t think such people need to see a movie to know that they’re alone. They’ve only to turn on the TV. Ben Ownby? Sean Hornbeck?

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.

So, it’s ok that she knows about such matters? Let me remind you: she’s twelve years old! And she knows about such matters? That’s healthy or a lack of innocence?

Point 5: NONE of us are her parents nor have sufficient knowledge of the this specific situation to pass judgment.

You don’t have to know the girl personally to know that she shouldn’t be introduced to sexuality that early.

 

[pnewton]

Only in 21st century America could you have a debate about the appropriateness of a child rape scene.

“Finally, brethren, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is of good repute, if there is any excellence and if anything worthy of praise, dwell on these things.” Philippians 4:8

BTW, a rape scene cannot be “tasteful” and it cannot be rationalized as a means to achieve some higher understanding. It is what it portays, ugliness. No NEW lessons to be learned at all through this type of depiction.

Wow! Scripture and on a Catholic forum.

I think you bring a needed point of view. While we discuss whether such a film should be allowed, it is helpful to remember God holds us to a higher standard than the world in which we live.

I am interested in hearing how the producers defended that they have tastefully depicted child rape.

 

[JimG]

Murders happen in real life, often horrific murders. Nevertheless I would not care to have snuff films become commercially popular, or even simulated snuff films.

There are a lot of scenes that are fine for novels, but that are not appropriate for movies. That’s why some novels should not be made into movies. But that’s a minority position: The current thinking is: if it can be imagined, it can–and should be–filmed. It’s freedom of expression. Fine. It also results in the desensitization of our society, including our children.

Does the fact that Shirley Temple (or any of the child movie actors of that period) never did a sex scene or a rape scene have anything to do with the fact that children then were as a group more able to retain their innocence? Probably so.

 

[BobCatholic]

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.

So in other words, you are unable to determine if something is bad or evil unless you’ve experienced it.

So is child rape evil? Have you witnessed it first hand? If not, then I suggest you keep your uninformed, prejudicially biased opinions to yourself at least until you’ve had the chance to witness it first hand.

So is the genocide of people in the Sudan evil? Have you witnessed it first hand? If not, then I suggest you keep your uninformed, prejudicially biased opinions to yourself at least until you’ve had the chance to witness it first hand.

So is murder evil? Have you witnessed it first hand? If not, then I suggest you keep your uninformed, prejudicially biased opinions to yourself at least until you’ve had the chance to witness it first hand.

So is stealing evil? Have you witnessed it first hand? If not, then I suggest you keep your uninformed, prejudicially biased opinions to yourself at least until you’ve had the chance to witness it first hand.

One doese not need ALL THE FACTS to make an informed judgment, one only needs SUFFICIENT facts. Personal experience is not the only way to obtain the facts.

 

[rayne100]

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.

It would be (name removed by moderator)ossible for me to explain to you the many different methodologies for getting into character without writing an entire book on here. If you are truly interested I can suggest some books on acting and preparation.

 

[rayne100]

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.

First of all you seem to be ignoring what I keep repeating over and over again. Which is, until we know for sure that there is graphic content I cannot make decision on either side. If there is no graphic content then I have no problem, if there is graphic content then I have a BIG problem with it.

Secondly, please site your sources for this information and remember that we are receiving mixed messages from the media. One side saying that it is not graphic and one side saying it is/

 

[rayne100]

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.

Adult pornography is entirely different from Child pornography.
There are many (and I am not agreeing with it or not) who look lat adult pornography and never even dream of acting against a child.

Also, Please do not argue the circumstances of my situation. I know them well.

 

[DWPC]

Quote from the producer (source:NY Post):
“The subject matter is very tough,” Robins told me, “but I was attracted to it because in the end it’s a story about human understanding, about a little girl who’s dealt a very bad deck of cards, but finds solace in the music of Elvis and survives.”

Well, *that *certainly justifies sexual exploitation of a child actress.

 

[Bella3502]

Let’s just keep promoting this movie and insure it’s box office success.

 

[Lucania]

It would be (name removed by moderator)ossible for me to explain to you the many different methodologies for getting into character without writing an entire book on here. If you are truly interested I can suggest some books on acting and preparation.

Sorry. You will have to enlighten someone else . Good job at dodging my questions, though. I must say that this is a rare thread/topic where I find it’s defense by some posters odd. So I’m going to leave it with you all .

 

[deb1]

First of all you seem to be ignoring what I keep repeating over and over again. Which is, until we know for sure that there is graphic content I cannot make decision on either side. If there is no graphic content then I have no problem, if there is graphic content then I have a BIG problem with it.

Secondly, please site your sources for this information and remember that we are receiving mixed messages from the media. One side saying that it is not graphic and one side saying it is/

This is what frustrates me and makes me wonder if the producers aren’t purposely generating controversy. No one from this movie wants to go on air and speak about this scene. Let’s face it, the basic synopsis for this movie sounds boring but creating controversy would get people’s attention even if only enough to see what all the fuss is about. That creates money for the people involved.

Withholding judgement until the movie comes out is fair but I think that it is appropriate for us to also be concerned with the idea that the rape of a child might be portrayed.

 

[deb1]

Let’s just keep promoting this movie and insure it’s box office success.

Yes, I have wondered if we aren’t simply promoting this movie. We live in a strange society.

 

[KatieD]

I cannot imagine letting my daughters do this when they were 12 year olds. This actress is not a young woman, she’s a child. A parent’s job is to protect her child. And frankly, Hollywood and the film and television industry contribute to the sexualization and exploitation of our young people. They aren’t there to help anyone but themselves.