Dakota Fanning movie blasted for her rape scene

Anngelique said:

http://momsquawk.wordpress.com/2006/07/26/on-dakota-fannings-rape-scene/

OK, with the understanding that I haven’t seen the movie in question (it’s still being filmed, though the controversial scene is in the can), I’d say, emphatically, no. Arguments that Fanning is mature for an adolescent, and that her mother and agent (who seem to be a leeeetle too excited about the Oscar possibilities) approved of the role, are thoroughly unpersuasive. She’s twelve. She should not be simulating a graphic rape scene that will be projected onto a 40-foot screen and then preserved forever on DVDs and shot around the world on You Tube, for her own emotional well-being now and for the rest of her life. Not even if it’s for a Higher Good. Not even if it’s Art. And (uh, Mom Fanning?) not even if she may win an Oscar. An adult actress could accept a role as a rape victim and be blindsided at how the experience affects her. When a child is involved, you err on the side of caution.

As for the dirty viewer angle, Jay Andrew Allen notes that pedophiles can get off on the most innocent of images, including the photos we post of our kids on parenting blogs. True enough. But there’s a difference between posting a picture of a half-naked kid and filming the simulated rape of a twelve-year-old: one may attract a pervert, but the other is likely to have legions of pedophile fans for years. No matter how untitilating, brutal and ugly the director attempts to make the rape scene, there will be a subset of the pervert population who will find it arousing. When Dakota Fanning is forty, there will still be child molesters getting off on those images. It’s not right to put a young girl in that situation. I don’t care if it’s for some higher purpose of enlightening the public about child abuse. It’s wrong.

I agree 100% with this!

Click to expand...

I agree 100% as well.

There are plenty of actors/actresses that do not have Oscars and they manage quite well without them. She's only 12 for goodness sake, if she's all that as an actress, she has plenty of time to earn one. I know I'm not in the movie biz, but from what I understand even an Oscar doesn't equal guaranteed success for the rest of your career. Sometimes it has the opposite effect.

JMO

Masterj said:

I think it is hysterical that a Fox News headline gets everyone so riled up. The article says the actual rape is not shown. I am going to reserve my judgement until I see the actual movie. If my memory serves me correctly, Dakota was involved with this decision and the producers, directors and her parents made sure she was comfortable and understand what the scene meant. Counselors were also on hand in case Dakota needed it.

As for *advertiser censored* out of Carolina, which is an excellent piece of literature, that was the point - you are supposed to be horrified and realize that this is wrong. And if it was horrifying to watch, well it should have been. It was supposed to drive home the point that rape is a crime and that children can be victims to. I don't think we should gloss over it and act like it doesn't exist.

Click to expand...

I don't need Hollywood to tell me what I should be horrified by nor what is "wrong." The story was most disturbing but the thing that made me sick was knowing that a real little girl was actually playing the part of being raped. Not a fictional character in a book. She went through the motions and had a man laying on top of her. Why in the hell was this neccessary and why would any parent allow it?
Furthermore if a counselor was on hand to help Dakota I'm guessing it was a pretty traumatic scene. Again..completely unnecessary and criminal in my opinion.

Sally said:

I don't need Hollywood to tell me what I should be horrified by nor what is "wrong." The story was most disturbing but the thing that made me sick was knowing that a real little girl was actually playing the part of being raped. Not a fictional character in a book. She went through the motions and had a man laying on top of her. Why in the hell was this neccessary and why would any parent allow it?
Furthermore if a counselor was on hand to help Dakota I'm guessing it was a pretty traumatic scene. Again..completely unnecessary and criminal in my opinion.

Click to expand...

I think they said the rape scene is NOT shown so who know's if a man was on her or not? And why would they need a man on her if they were not filming that scene to be shown on the big screen?

michelle said:

I think they said the rape scene is NOT shown so who know's if a man was on her or not? And why would they need a man on her if they were not filming that scene to be shown on the big screen?

Click to expand...

I was referring to "*advertiser censored* out of Carolina"

Masterj said:

As for *advertiser censored* out of Carolina, which is an excellent piece of literature, that was the point - you are supposed to be horrified and realize that this is wrong. And if it was horrifying to watch, well it should have been. It was supposed to drive home the point that rape is a crime and that children can be victims to. I don't think we should gloss over it and act like it doesn't exist.

Click to expand...

I don't need to watch a child being raped to know that this does exist! I agree w/ Anngelique that we are slowly being desensitized, and it's only going to get worse. I won't watch a rape scene. Years ago, Death Wish was enough for me. There was another one, can't remember the name. A mom and her two kids were home alone out in the country when these three guys stormed in. One grabbed the mom, one grabbed the daughter and took them to other rooms. Nothing was shown, but it was obvious what was about to take place. As you could hear their screams, the boy was pushed down on a table and his pants pulled down, then the camera went to his face. Just seeing his face and hearing all of their screams will haunt my mind forever. I didn't need to see more, I fully understood what was happening.

I have an almost 11 yr old dd, who I know for a fact would never watch a rape scene let alone do a rape scene (if she was an actress). She use to love the Little House on the Prairie series. I think we have seasons 1-8. Well, last year while dd began to watch Sylvia from season 7. Believe it or not, the little girl gets raped in this one!!! Thankfully I walked in and noticed these eyes in the woods watching this girl Sylvia. The next minute, she's shown w/ a hand around her mouth being dragged into the woods. At that minute I shut the TV off and just explained to dd that there was no reason to fill our minds w/ seeing this girl get abused. Shame on me for not reading the little preview page. Who would have thought of a rape on a Little House series. I did view it later alone, and although nothing is shown, the girl shows up back at her house all beaten up, dress ripped and holding her stomach. She ends up pregnant in part two. I guess I'm just explaning all of this to say that neither dd or I needed to see the girl raped to get the picture of what happened.

Dakota is a talented little girl w/ a promising future. She didn't need to do a rape scene for continued success. Shame on her parents!

Well, I can tell you right now that this is one movie I'll be skipping. I know I couldn't even begin to watch the scene. I can't watch any movie that involves a child being hurt. I remember when I watched Jodi Foster in "The Accused". I was so disturbed by the images that I cried uncontrollably and had to turn it off. And she was a grown woman. It's just such a violent act. One I don't need to see. I love Dakota Fanning. I really wish her parents would have re-considered this. I know it's "just acting" but I have to wonder at any residual effects it could have on a girl that young and impressionable.

ember said:

Well, I can tell you right now that this is one movie I'll be skipping. I know I couldn't even begin to watch the scene. I can't watch any movie that involves a child being hurt. I remember when I watched Jodi Foster in "The Accused". I was so disturbed by the images that I cried uncontrollably and had to turn it off. And she was a grown woman. It's just such a violent act. One I don't need to see. I love Dakota Fanning. I really wish her parents would have re-considered this. I know it's "just acting" but I have to wonder at any residual effects it could have on a girl that young and impressionable.

Click to expand...

I can't believe her parents are so hung up on her getting an Oscar. An Oscar at such a young age does NOT guarantee longevity in Hollywood. Tatum O'Neal anyone?

I read the thread subject and my heart sunk... I loved her in Dreamer and have always viewed her and her work as a positive aspect of Hollywood. But this... I would never want to watch a movie where she is in a rape scene. Don't know what her parents or agent were thinking when they got the idea that it would be good for her career. What is wrong with her being a kid and making positive kid movies... if that isn't enough to further her career, then I say Hollywood just isn't worth the time and energy. Scenes can take a long time to shoot... it had to be psychologically draining on her to film the violent rape scene over and over. What parent in their right mind would put their kid through that?

Look what happened with Macauley Culken when his dad pushed him into filming daker movies (The Good Son), it wasn't a good move... it did not further his career. And like Shopper pointed out: Tatum. She won an Oscar as a kid... from there onwards, Tatum's life spun out of control.

kahskye said:

...... There was another one, can't remember the name. A mom and her two kids were home alone out in the country when these three guys stormed in. One grabbed the mom, one grabbed the daughter and took them to other rooms. Nothing was shown, but it was obvious what was about to take place. As you could hear their screams, the boy was pushed down on a table and his pants pulled down, then the camera went to his face. ....

Click to expand...

This sounds like a scene from one of my favorite books - The Prince of Tides by Pat Conroy. I never saw the movie so don't know if that's it.

Rape scenes in movies don't bother me any more than other violence in movies. Plus, I have a hard time passing judgment on a scene I haven't seen, so I will give Dakota, her parents and the director the benefit of the doubt.

http://www.mcnblogs.com/reeler/archives/2006/07/
nydn_fanning_abused_for_arts_oscars_sake.html



The director's prior movie was about a child being raped. This, her second movie, is about the rape of a child. The script called for a graphic portrayal of the violent act. Basically Dakota Fanning pretended to be raped. And basically that is against the law.

There is a law (NCGS 14-190.16 (a) (4)) in North Carolina which states that it shall be the First Degree Sexual Exploitation of a Minor, a serious Felony Offense in which records, photographs, films, develops, or duplicates for sale or pecuniary gain material that contains a visual representation depicting a minor engaged in sexual activity.

When Hollywood talks a child into taking her clothes off, allowing herself to be pawed, groped, licked, and humped while crying, pleading, struggling and ultimately yielding in front of a camera over and over again, take after take, it is called potential Oscar material, when Chester the Molester does it in his basement he goes to jail. Go figure.

End quote.


If this is only the directors second movie, and both are about child rape, it seems to me that she should expand her subject matter and professional range.

I've read enough to know it's sick and twisted. There's lots of talk about possible action from law enforcement.

southcitymom said:

This sounds like a scene from one of my favorite books - The Prince of Tides by Pat Conroy. I never saw the movie so don't know if that's it.

Rape scenes in movies don't bother me any more than other violence in movies. Plus, I have a hard time passing judgment on a scene I haven't seen, so I will give Dakota, her parents and the director the benefit of the doubt.

Click to expand...

That's because we have been society as a whole has been desensitized. It was thrown in little by little. I relate this to the frog being cooked alive. You can put a frog in water and turn up the heat ever so gradually and he will stay in the water and cook to death. That's what Hollywood or more importantly Satan himself does to society. They turn up the heat every so little and we bask in it's warmth until it's too late.

I remember all the movies you all have mentioned which shows the impressions this stuff leaves on our minds. Which upsets me because a 12 yr old girl does not need to experience rape, acting or not.

Anyone else remember the same issues with Brooke Shields? Her mom also seemed to have stars in her eyes. Shame on those parents. We are sexualizing our children at such a young age. And Hollywood supports it. Nice.

Here's some info about Brooke for those that don't remember or are too young (including congressional involvement!):
http://www.nndb.com/people/197/000023128/



In 1978 a barely adolescent Shields played a child prostitute in Louis Malle's Pretty Baby with Susan Sarandon as her mother. Audiences were sufficiently disturbed by Shields's nude scenes that she spoke before a Congressional inquiry, testifying that some of the most scandalous scenes had been filmed by older body doubles. Nude pictures of Shields, taken when she was 10, surfaced when she was 15, and mother and daughter sued to have them suppressed. The court decided the contracts were in order and deemed the photos "art". Shields captured the essence of the virgin-*advertiser censored*, as she famously proclaimed "Nothing comes between me and my Calvins", yet filmed commercials warning teen girls against the perils of too-early sex. In 1980's Blue Lagoon, the movie for which the teenage Shields is probably most famous, her hair was reportedly glued to her breasts to prevent them from showing. In her autobiography, On My Own -- written at 16 -- Shields stated her intention to abstain from premarital sex. Reportedly her contract with her publisher required her to remain a virgin for a specified number of years after publication of the book.

Anngelique said:

That's because we have been society as a whole has been desensitized. It was thrown in little by little. I relate this to the frog being cooked alive. You can put a frog in water and turn up the heat ever so gradually and he will stay in the water and cook to death. That's what Hollywood or more importantly Satan himself does to society. They turn up the heat every so little and we bask in it's warmth until it's too late.

Click to expand...

I hear what you are saying and there is some truth to this.

My own experience is that I was literally born interested and intrigued with knowing/seeing/invetsigating/understanding the dark side of humanity - all elements of it. From the moment I could read, I was sneaking away reading all sorts of inappropriate books. I remain today as intrigued with the dark elements of humanity as I am with the light elements of humanity.

I don't feel like they cancel each other out - I feel like they give me the bigger picture of what goes on here.

Movies, books, plays etc.. are merely a reflection of the larger picture. Maybe it's a chicken/egg thing. I don't blame or get offended at movies that show us the ugliness that exists. The ugliness and/or the beauty was here way before the movies were.

southcitymom said:

Movies, books, plays etc.. are merely a reflection of the larger picture. Maybe it's a chicken/egg thing. I don't blame or get offended at movies that show us the ugliness that exists. The ugliness and/or the beauty was here way before the movies were.

Click to expand...

This is exactly how I feel. I really am curious as to how many of those who are condemning Dakota, her parents, the directors, etc, have actually SEEN the movie or the offensive scene.

I don't think the Caulkin analogy is fair. His parents were fighting nonstop, there were allegations of abuse, and his father stole his money. He didn't get messed up from starring in The Good Son.

reb said:

her agent says, ".. this is something that's really challenged her talent". geez.... just what we need, even more violence-against-women (and in this case, an assault of a young girl)-- as-entertainment. don't we have enough of this around.....???

Click to expand...

Too true we do.Who wants to sit on here reading true cases that are just sickening.Only to go out to the movies to see it. No, I think Dakota's parents have gone to far. She is 12.Let her be a kid.Why would you put your child up for a role like that.I would not want my daughter being pretend raped on film so the public can see it.
As movie goers we have choices.my choice is to not see this film. It is up to others if they choose to go.

Masterj said:

This is exactly how I feel. I really am curious as to how many of those who are condemning Dakota, her parents, the directors, etc, have actually SEEN the movie or the offensive scene.

I don't think the Caulkin analogy is fair. His parents were fighting nonstop, there were allegations of abuse, and his father stole his money. He didn't get messed up from starring in The Good Son.

Click to expand...

No he did not, and that was a good movie BTW.

It always amazes me how quick people are to defend animals and are so upset when they are victimized but then make excuses when it's a child. To me she is 12, she is a child and the adults in her life should protect her not exploit and victimize her regardless of their so called cause or reasoning. End of story!

For me, it's not even about not "glossing over" or covering up the bad, ugly things that happen in life. THIS IS A CHILD. She is a living, breathing child who should not be subjected to it.

I have heard rumblings about this rape scene for at least 6 months now--it's not NEW news. Have I seen it---well, no of course not--it hasn't even been released yet. I don't NEED to see a violent rape of a 12 year old girl being depicted for the sole purpose of making money to know that it's wrong. It's pretty clear cut for me.

My only beef is that she is a child. If this was an adult--fine, whatever...I realize there is a market for that sort of thing.

Would anyone who is defending it allow your own daughter to be the young victim in a violent rape scene?

julianne said:

For me, it's not even about not "glossing over" or covering up the bad, ugly things that happen in life. THIS IS A CHILD. She is a living, breathing child who should not be subjected to it.

I have heard rumblings about this rape scene for at least 6 months now--it's not NEW news. Have I seen it---well, no of course not--it hasn't even been released yet. I don't NEED to see a violent rape of a 12 year old girl being depicted for the sole purpose of making money to know that it's wrong. It's pretty clear cut for me.

My only beef is that she is a child. If this was an adult--fine, whatever...I realize there is a market for that sort of thing.

Would anyone who is defending it allow your own daughter to be the young victim in a violent rape scene?

Click to expand...

I am not defending it. I would NOT let my child, Under the age of 18 to do a scene like this. I am not her mom though. We have all I am sure seen a movie with a violent scene against a child. The only difference I think with this movie is they say in the article that a scene is NOT shown. I dont know how they make movies but I would think there really isnt a guy on her or anything like that since its not shown, I dont know though.