How Far Should Films Go? / What Scenes Should They Show?

[hectorberlioz]

http://www.playfuls.com/news_0004782..._Director.html


For the Love of the Oscar...

When will we realize that making movies is secondary to Life itself and decency?

[Nurvingiel]

Hm. That link doesn't contain an actual story, just a title and a picture of Dakota Fanning.

What movie is this about anyway?

I consider the Oscars to be an award for Hollywood actors who are "due" to win, and thus not the slightest bit indicative of movie quality.

[hectorberlioz]

Here's a better link.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16773090/

Originally Posted by Dakota Fanning

“It’s not a rape movie,” Fanning said earlier. “That’s not even the point of the film.”

Listen young lady, it may not have been the central part of the movie intentionally, but it certainly is the most noticeable part.

[Nurvingiel]

Thanks Hector. Well, since the rape scene isn't graphic, I don't think the movie should be in trouble. It should be rated R, but rape and child abuse should not be avoided because they are disturbing and upsetting.

I probably won't go see Hounddog, because the rape scene would upset me too much, but I'm glad it's out there, because it will help raise awareness of child abuse.

[hectorberlioz]

You won't see it actually, nobody is picking it up thankfully.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=51432

But making movies about it is going waayy too far! I cannot believe this movie!

Anyone else noticed that 'sex problems' movies are in abundance today? I think the Pamela Rogers case down here must have really sparked something, maybe when she gets out, she can direct Sundance events

Rape of young children happens, but we don't need to make a freaking movie about it!

Correction: We don't need to make a movie with that type of scene in it.

Want to know what I think? Dakota Fanning through whatever manipulation of the director [of evil] and her mother, was taken advantage of. No child actor in their right mind would do this without having been brainwashed first.

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

You won't see it actually, nobody is picking it up thankfully.

Hm. This makes me want to see it, actually.

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

But making movies about it is going waayy too far! I cannot believe this movie!

What would be acceptable? A book? Why a book and not a movie?

You're entitled to your opinions of course, and I see where you're coming from because movies are very "in your face", I'm just curious.

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

Want to know what I think? Dakota Fanning through whatever manipulation of the director [of evil] and her mother, was taken advantage of. No child actor in their right mind would do this without having been brainwashed first.

How do you know that? Dakota Fanning is an artist, and she did not experience any trama in the filming of that scene.

[hectorberlioz]

Brainwashed upbringing perhaps...

[Nurvingiel]

Well I suppose that's possible. Child actors in Hollywood seem to live in a weird sort of bubble. However, I don't think that we can say she made a poor decision on filming Hounddog because of that.

So, should no actor ever play Hitler in movies then? The Nazis committed atrocities such as rape and mass murder, of children as well. Maybe no movie should be made about them.

Where do we draw the line?

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Hm. This makes me want to see it, actually.

You just go for imflammatory stuff on principle?

What would be acceptable? A book? Why a book and not a movie?

How did we get here? I wasn't talking about books.
But if you really want to know: there are too many books to count, but Dakota Fanning is a very famous actress. And even if it wasn't her it'd still be just as horrible to me. And lastly, it involves acting. If you've noticed, it doesn't take any kind of simulation to write a book, only mental stimulation. (Speaking of which, Mr. Sanctimonious Sen. James Webb D-Virginia wrote numerous scenes of these types, and I think it's outrageous he was even elected.)

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

So, should no actor ever play Hitler in movies then? The Nazis committed atrocities such as rape and mass murder, of children as well. Maybe no movie should be made about them.

Where do we draw the line?

We can film Dakota Fanning, we can film Hitler: and we can make movies be about child rape, but to film or collaging a scene like that or whatever you want to call it, is wrong.

[The last sane person]

Graphic violence, blowing up of arabs and jews and everything else is ho hum and old news, but a movie about a rape of a kid, something that happens quite frequently is too shocking? Hmm, something is amiss.

[hectorberlioz]

You know, I hear that a lot from people.

I suppose "logic" by itself would seem to say that violence is worse than rape...but oh yeah, rape is violence.

[The last sane person]

And yet the american media seems to be fine with just the killing and non-rape violence. Talk or show rape and they faint. But not bombing, killing, maiming. The militray does that, but "Oh! It's their job." Talk about raping, and "EEEEK! Itsunnaturalandcruelandevilandifweseeanythingabout itwewillfaint!!!!"

[hectorberlioz]

Well I don't know how, I can't explain it...but it IS worse somehow. It's more evil...

[Insidious Rex]

What silliness… Its the sign of a puritanical culture obsessed with sex for all the wrong reasons. I say more power to Dakota. Shes a great actress doing what great actresses do: ACTING. Its a non graphical sex scene. There is no nudity. You dont see any "action". I think this is an enormous case of much ado about nothing on behalf of too many people who worry way too much about underage sex. Theres been underage sex scenes much worse then this on camera before but we didnt seem to be as obsessed with underage sex back then as we are now in the Family Coalition/Nancy Grace present so it wasn’t nearly the huge blow up that this small scene is.

Its complete hypocrisy to foam at the mouth about a non graphical sex scene involving a minor (and not in a celebratory way mind you but quite the opposite!) and yet not even blink when kids of her same age are seen on camera being shot or killed or portrayed as dead in a hundred different ways in PG movies like Harry Potter. What an enormous double standard. Leave the art alone. And dont disparage her parents/guardians/teachers just because they allow her to do something you dont agre with for your own reasons.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

Well I don't know how, I can't explain it...but it IS worse somehow. It's more evil...

I feel the same way about child rape being worse than murder, and I think I can explain it to some extent.

Rape has been defined as a form of torture. I think that torture is often worse than murder. I think that torture is especially bad when performed against a child, someone so young, defenseless and comparatively innocent.

I find murder of children worse than murder of adults, for the same reason. I think most of us would.

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

And lastly, it involves acting. If you've noticed, it doesn't take any kind of simulation to write a book, only mental stimulation.

I feel that writing something can be as bad (or good) as portraying it on television, if you write it descriptively. Writing can sometimes be worse. If that film showed nothing graphic, but then a book went into massive detail, I'd say the book expresses the rape scene far more vividly than the movie does.


My own feeling is that it's not necessarily a bad thing to have a child sex scene in a movie. It can be bad, but it doesn't have to be. It really depends what the message in the movie is. If it's a good message the movie is presenting, one that is opposed to child rape and presents it as the evil it is, especially if that is done in a non-explicit way, then that's not going to be a bad thing for our society. Having that anti-evil message out in society is good.

This is why I have a major problem with a lot of the sexual sequences presented in Hollywood- it's celebrating immoral acts that very frequently end up causing the participants a lot of pain. There are no consequences in the Hollywood presentation, though, psychological, spiritual or physical. That is highly unrealistic, and I think that it is a very negative message for our society.

If nudity had been presented in the crucifixion scene in Mel Gibson's "The Passion," on the other hand, or if it is presented perhaps in Holocaust movies, those have better messages. They show the evil as it is to make people more set on clinging to the good, and more appreciative of the good. That is positive for our society. Nudity can also be placed in films in non-violent ways where it is presented in an appropriate manner that does not send foul messages. Sex presented within wedlock, for example, isn't generally going to be a bad thing for society to see on film either. Unless it's just incredibly graphic and serves no purpose but that of pornography.

If the scene in this movie presents the rape in a way that indicates it's good, or in some way acceptable, or presents some other kind of twisted message in the act, I think that is going to be bad for our society. Boycotting that movie is definitely in those circumstances the right thing to do.

If the scene was graphic, it should also definitely be stomped on as illegal mistreatment of a minor.

Those are my feelings on the matter, anyway.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

If the scene in this movie presents the rape in a way that indicates it's good, or in some way acceptable, or presents some other kind of twisted message in the act, I think that is going to be bad for our society. Boycotting that movie is definitely in those circumstances the right thing to do.

I agree with you there, Lief; I disapprove of this puritanical INSTANT BAN that so many people seem to have to stamp on movies without knowing anything about them. It sounds like the scene is very non-graphic, and so shouldn't be a problem, except perhaps because of the message. I will say, however, that I think it HIGHLY unlikely that it will be portraying child rape as good or acceptable; the closest thing I can imagine is that it will give a message of forgiving the offenders, or perhaps showing that the are also human.

[Huorn]

I am also in agreement with Lief. One needs to examine the overall message of a film. Is the scene explicit? From what I have read it is just the actress' head and hands and the effect is achieved through the editing in of an image of pants being unzipped.

We probably could do without the length of the scene if it is too drawn out.

I also agree that too many film have senseless sex scenes. Personally I find them boring. I an not excited by peeking into people's private lives.

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

What silliness… Its the sign of a puritanical culture obsessed with sex for all the wrong reasons. I say more power to Dakota. Shes a great actress doing what great actresses do: ACTING. Its a non graphical sex scene.

Somehow the fact that it was a collAge put-together sex scene didn't convince me that it was any less horrible. If there was some kind of more graphic scene where they used baby dolls, I'd feel the same way.

There is no nudity. You dont see any "action". I think this is an enormous case of much ado about nothing on behalf of too many people who worry way too much about underage sex. Theres been underage sex scenes much worse then this on camera before but we didnt seem to be as obsessed with underage sex back then as we are now in the Family Coalition/Nancy Grace present so it wasn’t nearly the huge blow up that this small scene is.

I don't know...the young Jodie Foster in Taxi Driver was pretty controversial.

Its complete hypocrisy to foam at the mouth about a non graphical sex scene involving a minor (and not in a celebratory way mind you but quite the opposite!) and yet not even blink when kids of her same age are seen on camera being shot or killed or portrayed as dead in a hundred different ways in PG movies like Harry Potter. What an enormous double standard. Leave the art alone. And dont disparage her parents/guardians/teachers just because they allow her to do something you dont agre with for your own reasons.

I think it's unhealthy that a young actor like Dakota Fanning had to be involved in even the filming of that movie. Would you loan film shot of your leg for a scene you knew was sick?

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

I agree with you there, Lief; I disapprove of this puritanical INSTANT BAN that so many people seem to have to stamp on movies without knowing anything about them.

Not that you can name one particualr instance where anyone (meaning: "puritans") wanted to really ban a movie...

It sounds like the scene is very non-graphic, and so shouldn't be a problem, except perhaps because of the message. I will say, however, that I think it HIGHLY unlikely that it will be portraying child rape as good or acceptable; the closest thing I can imagine is that it will give a message of forgiving the offenders, or perhaps showing that the are also human.

In the movie the girl become premiscuous, and just in case you didn't know, there is at least one other scene where she kisses her boyfriend and has at least one article of clothing removed in the course of the scene.