12 year old Dakota Fanning wants Oscar: Nude Scene?!?!

[Nehkara]

Originally Posted by ken0042

Here's the thing. This 12 year old had to show up on the set partly undressed, and then have an adult male actor get on top of her and pretend to rape her; while she pretended to be raped; screaming and crying and all of that. Myself, I don't think that is appropriate for us to put a child through that type of thing. Unless the entire scene was done with computer graphics I don't see it as being acceptable.

A few years ago (10 or so) there was a movie about a 12-ish year old black girl from The South who was raped by a bunch of white guys. They illustrated the girl being raped without the actress actually having an actor lying on top of her pumping his hips.

I see your point... I just have a hard time condemning a movie before I know exactly how the scene was done. This is the note about it in the IMDB entry:

Controversy began to stir at the end of the film's production due to a scene in which Lewellyn, played by 12 year-old Dakota Fanning, is raped. Fanning's mother assured that the scene was tastefully done and closely supervised.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0415856/trivia

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally Posted by Nehkara

I see your point... I just have a hard time condemning a movie :

Whose condemning it...?

[Nehkara]

That is messsed up.

I cannot believe this, both that she did this and that a studio would actually make the movie. This is so very disturbing.

Here's the thing. This 12 year old had to show up on the set partly undressed, and then have an adult male actor get on top of her and pretend to rape her; while she pretended to be raped; screaming and crying and all of that. Myself, I don't think that is appropriate for us to put a child through that type of thing.

Perhaps not outright condemnation but pretty close.

[Agamemnon]

I think we've got a lot of hangups about nudity. The human form isn't gross, disgusting, or offensive. But you wouldn't think that way if you asked your average person these days... seems like a dumb thing to get worked up about.

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by Nehkara

Controversy began to stir at the end of the film's production due to a scene in which Lewellyn, played by 12 year-old Dakota Fanning, is raped. Fanning's mother assured that the scene was tastefully done and closely supervised.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0415856/trivia

I'm not sure I ever expected to hear a rape described as "tastefully done".

With movie magic and overdubbing I'm sure they could make it as un-disturbing as possible for the cast. That description just seems "off".

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

I think we've got a lot of hangups about nudity. The human form isn't gross, disgusting, or offensive. But you wouldn't think that way if you asked your average person these days... seems like a dumb thing to get worked up about.

Nudity - I agree with you (why can you show people getting shot in primetime, but not a woman's nipple?).

But rape is a lot more serious. That is crossing a violence + sex boundary for entertainment purposes that I am personally uncomfortable with.

[ken0042]

For the record I'm condemning the way the scene may have been done. For it to be worthy of "best actress" to me that implies that the scene was so well done as to make us beileve she was being raped.

I just hope the quote from her mom saying she believes it was in good taste doesn't mean "in good taste for how much money we received." After all, how many times have we heard about a Playboy model's pose being in "good taste"; while it is something none of us would want our own daughters to be doing.

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

I think we've got a lot of hangups about nudity. The human form isn't gross, disgusting, or offensive. But you wouldn't think that way if you asked your average person these days... seems like a dumb thing to get worked up about.

Agreed on the nudity part. The human body is a beautiful thing. (Well, most of the time.)

But why do we have to show children getting abused? Yesterday we were all saying that buddy in Saskatchewan should be hung up by his privates, and today people are saying we should be giving him more stroke material.

As I said earlier, can't we tell the story without being so graphic?

[Nehkara]

I am thinking that best actress may be a bit of a stretch given that the film ran out of money part way through. I somehow doubt it will have a wide release.

[ken0042]

What do you think the Oscar will be for then, Nehkara?

[Nehkara]

Originally Posted by ken0042

What do you think the Oscar will be for then, Nehkara?

Sorry... I didn't mean to be unclear... I'm not sure if it will be Oscar material at all unless enough people actually see it. We'll see what happens.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

Nudity - I agree with you (why can you show people getting shot in primetime, but not a woman's nipple?).

But rape is a lot more serious. That is crossing a violence + sex boundary for entertainment purposes that I am personally uncomfortable with.

Sure... and if it was a real rape, I'd be on board with you. But since it was on a set with lots of people around, and there was no actual intercourse, its just another movie scene.

As for violence/sex for entertainment purposes... as I said earlier in the thread, Hollywood grossly glorifies the worst, most disgusting violent/sex acts imaginable. Some of the films coming out are made purely to fantasize about the worst pain and fear imaginable. I think its pretty sick that people are fascinated with any of these movies. That said, I think people should be allowed to make them... I just don't understand people that need to see them and appreciate the horrifying levels of fantasy violence in them. My opinion though.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by ken0042

Agreed on the nudity part. The human body is a beautiful thing. (Well, most of the time.)

But why do we have to show children getting abused? Yesterday we were all saying that buddy in Saskatchewan should be hung up by his privates, and today people are saying we should be giving him more stroke material.

As I said earlier, can't we tell the story without being so graphic?

Meh, we show movies about serial killers, unjust killings, murder, rape, abuse all the time.

Are these movies dumb and worthless? I certainly think so. But this stuff comes out all the time, every year. This one movie doesn't 'step over the line' when considering some of the stuff out there.

You ever see the Life of David Gale? That had probably the most disturbing death scene I've ever seen... much worse than a simulated rape, imo.

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

Meh, we show movies about serial killers, unjust killings, murder, rape, abuse all the time.
.

I'll agree with that. The topics on Law and Order SVU (great show btw) are as graphic as you get in TV, rape, incest, abuse, mostly against children.

I just think it's a bit strange that a 12 year old feels she needs to win an oscar now, and going nude is the way to do it. That's my problem with it.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm

I'll agree with that. The topics on Law and Order SVU (great show btw) are as graphic as you get in TV, rape, incest, abuse, mostly against children.

I just think it's a bit strange that a 12 year old feels she needs to win an oscar now, and going nude is the way to do it. That's my problem with it.

Well... is she doing the scene specifically to go for an Oscar? Or is it that the scene is so good that its Oscar-worthy? If she's getting naked just because she thinks it will help her chances, then thats dumb... but also her/parents choice I suppose.

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

Well... is she doing the scene specifically to go for an Oscar? Or is it that the scene is so good that its Oscar-worthy? If she's getting naked just because she thinks it will help her chances, then thats dumb... but also her/parents choice I suppose.

I wouldn't know, obviously, but I wouldn't be shocked if that's the case. We've seen this time and time again from some actors.. make yourself ugly, get an Oscar, do something shocking, get nominated etc. It wouldn't suprise me at all to see Dakota's handlers (parents, agents) wanting her to take this role just for that.

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

You ever see the Life of David Gale? That had probably the most disturbing death scene I've ever seen... much worse than a simulated rape, imo.

I haven't seen the movie, but I will take your word for it.

The difference for me still is the age. How old was the actor/actress who was being killed? I'm sure the scene was disturbing, but the actor was still old enough to be able to distinguish reality from fantasy.

And by that, I'm sure Dakota knows in her concious mind that she is merely acting. But how much does something like that at that age affect the subconcious.

Let's use your killing type movie as an example. We sometimes even laugh when we see a death in a movie (Guy getting run over by steam roller in Austin Powers.) But I guess I don't see any good in putting a child through that.

We may have to agree to disagree.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

Well... is she doing the scene specifically to go for an Oscar? Or is it that the scene is so good that its Oscar-worthy? If she's getting naked just because she thinks it will help her chances, then thats dumb... but also her/parents choice I suppose.

I think its pretty obvious that she's doing the nude scene to win an Oscar. That in itself is wrong.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by ken0042

The difference for me still is the age. How old was the actor/actress who was being killed? I'm sure the scene was disturbing, but the actor was still old enough to be able to distinguish reality from fantasy.

I don't get it. A woman being raped is fantasy, a child being raped is 'reality'? I don't see the difference in 'realism' despite the age difference. Rape is rape. Its not 'more acceptable' based on age.

And by that, I'm sure Dakota knows in her concious mind that she is merely acting. But how much does something like that at that age affect the subconcious.

Hmm... I'd go on a limb and say little to none? If they're 'forcing' her to do the scene, then there's a problem. She's an actress and (I assume) a professional. Actresses know when they're acting, and I don't think they have issues distinguishing between their acting and reality. There have been plenty of movies where children have been abused, tortured, killed, etc. I've never acted though, so I guess I don't know.

Let's use your killing type movie as an example. We sometimes even laugh when we see a death in a movie (Guy getting run over by steam roller in Austin Powers.) But I guess I don't see any good in putting a child through that.

Well... you're comparing a death in a comedy to a rape scene in a drama. No, they don't have the same impact (and Austin Powers wasn't what I was referring to in my killing movies). I guess let me ask you this; Is there a difference between a rape scene with a 16 year old vs. an 18 year old? 20 year old? At what point do you begin to distinguish between reality and fantasy based on age? I've never thought there was a difference, really. Rape is rape, its all bad. Its not 'funny' or acceptable just because the woman is over 18.

We may have to agree to disagree.

Fair enough.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by Azure

I think its pretty obvious that she's doing the nude scene to win an Oscar. That in itself is wrong.

Oh well, I can see now that you've weighed in its a closed case. Whew, what a load off my mind, I guess we can lock the topic now. Mods? Azure has spoken...