DakotaFanningpwnedFollow

First of all, a link.
Then, a few blurbs to summarize:


Bolding mine.

So, it seems that what is ticking this minister off is the fact that a child is portrayed as victim of a violent crime. He feels a child that age engaging in a 'sexual act' is sending a message. However, he ignores the fact that rape is not a sexual crime but a power play, and I'm sure that if this fictional 12-year old got pregnant from this fictional rape, he would encourage her to have the fictional baby. Also, it's emabarrasing when the 12-year old in question that you're trying to 'protect' intellectually pwns you:

I wonder how many of the nutjobs throwing back their heads and howling about this complained about the scene where a little black girl got raped in A Time To Kill.

My guess? Zero.

I really doubt Dakota just said yes and that was that, there are others (parents, coaches, managers) that have a say in her doing the film. Yes she annoys the hell out of me but kudos for enduring what I am sure was a disturbing role at any age.

I really wished people would leave Shit like this alone. If it offends you, great avoid seeing it but don't make her out to be a "victim" if she took the role on at her own free will and the will of others in her life.

Edited, Jan 24th 2007 12:27pm by Soracloud

My thoughts are a little jumbled this morning--needing caffeine rather badly today for some reason. But aside from my first statement, here are a few other things that occurred to me:


1) By equating this scene with child pornography, these people protesting are intimating that it's intended to titillate, and I'm pretty sure that's the exact opposite of what the filmmaker intends--it's meant to horrify, because child rape is a horrific crime.

2) By intimating that this scene is titillating, these people "protesting" are the ones who are sexualizing and objectifying a child, not the filmmaker. Seriously--if you find yourself turned on by it, seek help.

3) Despite the press it's gotten in the last 30 years or so, child sexual abuse is still very often a "silent crime." Maybe it's the fact that right now I'm reading Penny Simkin's book When Survivors Give Birth: Understanding and Healing the Effects of Child Sexual Abuse in Childbearing Women that's making me sensitive to just HOW "silent" this crime tends to be. And crap like this makes it even more silent--these people want to sweep it under the rug and pretend it doesn't happen, when in fact it happens all too often, and we need to stop plugging our ears and covering our eyes and see it for the epidemic it is.

Flea has it right--these people are complete dolts.

These are the same idiots who insist that talking to kids about sex gives them the idea to have sex.

How they think the human race was propagating itself prior to sex education is anyone's guess.

"We mustn't talk about the sexual abuse of children! It's DIRTY!"

It's only dirty if you find it titillating, and that, my dear, is no one's problem but yours alone.

It was the appropriate word to use, which doesn't mean I was unaware of the salacious response it would generate in prurient minds.

Projecting again I see. Poor BT.

I wish. I've been watching it for 20 minutes straight, and they haven't popped out once.

Intellctually pwned because she is acting?

I'm willing to bet that there are thousands of kids who thought they were acting too...

Is the real problem that he's a Christian or that he thinks this muck shouldn't be in theatres nor should employ 12 yr old girls?

Oh wait, freedom of speech and all that jazz.

I think that all opinions on weather it is accepable or not should be held until someone who isn't a Hollywood wacko views the film. I'd prefer a parent, protective father prefered.

Other than that, I can say much, mostly because I haven't seen it, but I would imagine that considering the laws that exist in most civilized countries that protect children, I'm doubting that ANY actual sexual contact occured. Camera trickery and horrible lighting are huge in most scenes that portray rape and molestation to protect the actors. Last movie I saw (really slow moving indie film) that had a molestation scene (it was about an author and his experiences), it was discussed before the movie was even shown, and the filmakers disclosed that all the actors were actually fully clothed, with violent camera movements used to help disguise that fact. It wasn't that bad, but a little more "graphic" than I expected. Mostly the off camera sound imagery (which was other actors entirely).

The jury is out on this one, and I'll wait to see the actual scene before I condemn it.


EDIT: Wait....when did Catholic Priests become upset about child molestation anyway?


Though there is one point that I agree with, why aren't we as a populace more upset over the portrayal of child abuse of any type in films? People ***** and moan about other things, too much violence in games, movies, and music, but child abuse is ok?

Edited, Jan 24th 2007 2:29pm by Metastophicleas

Congratulations on completely missing the point. Totally unlike you. I'll attribute it to lack of sleep.

The real problem, in case you were wondering, is that he's (he being the Christian Minister) condemning a work of fiction based on a short scene that implies rather than graphically depicts a rape, and he's accusing the writers, producers, and directors of cornering Dakota Fanning, an actor, into portraying a scene the content of which they disagree with. The actor herself shows no such compunction. He's also stating that the rape scene itself is equivalent to ****, which only a person harboring a secret attraction to children or who understands jack squat about the psychology of rape would think.

edit: /shakes fist at Samira

Edited, Jan 24th 2007 1:39pm by Atomicflea

This isn't quite true, as some new studies are starting to show. There are quite a few people that are extremely aroused by watching scenes that depict rape. It's starting to sell, even in the **** industry. Check out the number of sites that are now devoted to it.

I agree with you that an actual rape is about power and control, rather than sex, but it's shocking how many people find these depictions arousing, and would rather watch those vs. say, some normal hardcore. I'm thinking that the man posing the argument is thinking in the scope of an audience, rather than a person commiting the act. If the audience is aroused, then he has a point, if it's only the person commiting the act, he's just acting out of a false concern. Though, I have to admit that I don't have sound here at work, so I could be way off, and if I am, I'll edit the post, and back you up 100%.

No...what I see is the same boring thing that happens every day. Which is why =4 gets sooooo tired.

The guy is using his right to decry a movie that uses a 12 yr old girl as a rape victim, acting or not. Is it morally and legally ok to portray this on a movie theatre in front of millions? I think it's a pretty f'ucking valid question to be asked.

It's up to the movie goer to determine their moral decisions, but don't think that he was "pwnted" because Dakota says that she is just acting.
And as far as a false dilemma....give me a break.

I'm sure that there are tons of kids that were duped into horrible "human conditions" by being convinced they were movie stars. Dakota just had the privledge of acting it out. Lucky her.

Say what you want, it's not doing any good, even if it's not doing any bad to you.