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

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by Azure

I guess when you learn about it in Grade 9, there is a greater chance of getting pregnant in grade 9.

No, the chances of it would go down, because you had been educated not only on the technicalities but also on the consequences. Pregancy goes up when kids who don't know any better start fooling around with things that their parents are too scared to talk to them about.

Trying to shield kids away from sex is plain stupid. By Grade 9, kids have been thinking about sex for a good 3-4 years. Thats 3-4 years of potential sexual encounters where a kid wouldnt know how to protect himself or his partner. Putting one's head in the sand and pretending it doesnt exist won't stop a kids natural instinct to learn about sex.

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

You make it sound as though the scene is being shot with the express purpose of allowing viewers to see a minor's nude body. I'm pretty sure it's an actual 'movie' with 'scenes', not a pornographic film.

Yeah, that's exactly what I'm saying. Is there any particular reason we can't see the scene without seeing a minor's nude body? I mean, for generations nude bodies on screen were just not done, and yet in a love scene, we still knew what they were doing... Why does the 12 year old have to be nude? Why do we have to see it? Why can't the scene be done tastefully without showing her nude? Frankly, there is no reason except to shock viewers, and that would make it the express purpose.

And I've never called it a pornographic film. Ever. I called the scene in question child porn. It's a naked 12 year old engaged in a rape scene with presumably an adult male. I don't care if they were faking it, You watch a naked 12 year old get raped, you're watching child porn. It's the exploitation of children in a sexual manner.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_pornography

"The definition of "child pornography" differs from country to country. Most prohibit visual depictions of sexual activities involving actual children under a specified age."

Hmph. I think that qualifies.

[ernie]

Geez. Where I grew up the major sex education course was in Grade 6. You know when everybody in that grade went to the gym/auditorium for a full afternoon for 2 days (one day we learned about the men the next day women). In grade 5 we were given a small class on it.

Grade 9 is way too fracking late. It has to happen at about 11 years of age (which is grade 5/6).

as for this story I think we can be assured of one thing: this is a scene that will be disturbing and is intended to be disturbing. It is not some ode to pedophilia.

Dakota Fanning is a talented actress that is reaching an age where she will be looking to take challenging roles. This will be a challenge and i'm quite sure she's mature enough and smart enough to understand the controversy and the subject matter. Everything I have ever read about her says she controls her career and she chooses her roles from the scripts she gets. I firmly believe there was thorough discussion about the nature of the movie/scene with everyone involved in this movie and an understanding was reached.

Until we see it it is hard to judge. As well, the reporter uses the phrase "half-nude"...I'm not sure what that means to be perfectly honest. It doesn't have to mean topless or bottomless but instead could be a shot of her bare back or whatever. Again until we see it and understand the full context of the scene it is impossible to pass judgement one way or the other.

There was a similar controversy a few years back with oscar winning film American Beauty. Thora Birch was topless. She was 15 or 16 when it was filmed. Many people were up in arms over it. Then you watched the movie and found out that it was an honest scene and genuine scene that belonged in the movie. There was controversy with Brooke Shields. Just last year there was controversy with nicole kidman in "Birth" being in a tub with a 10 year old boy. Watching the film it was again an honest and genuine film where the scene fit.

Now obviously the scene being a rape scene on this one adds even more seriousness but I think you have to see the film and the scene before condemning it.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by FireFly

Yeah, that's exactly what I'm saying. Is there any particular reason we can't see the scene without seeing a minor's nude body? I mean, for generations nude bodies on screen were just not done, and yet in a love scene, we still knew what they were doing... Why does the 12 year old have to be nude? Why do we have to see it? Why can't the scene be done tastefully without showing her nude? Frankly, there is no reason except to shock viewers, and that would make it the express purpose.

I suppose I could pose the reverse to you, why can she not be nude? What is so awful about seeing her body that sends shivers down the spine? I assume the reason for the nudity is to make it 'realistic'. Technically, no one has to see it. Go or don't go, your call. Just like its her call whether or not she wants to do the scene (I assume).

And I've never called it a pornographic film. Ever. I called the scene in question child porn. It's a naked 12 year old engaged in a rape scene with presumably an adult male. I don't care if they were faking it, You watch a naked 12 year old get raped, you're watching child porn. It's the exploitation of children in a sexual manner.

No, this is not child porn. Porn implies (imo) that the scene is created speicifically with the goal of causing sexual excitement in its viewers. Seeing as its a brutal rape scene, I don't think that the 'mainstream' will get turned on by it.

I guess I stand by my opinion that age does not make the human form a bad thing to witness. If they were parading her around in a nurses uniform loaded down with makeup I think you'd have a point. I don't think she's being exploited... she's probably getting paid (in trust) more money than I make in a year.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_pornography

"The definition of "child pornography" differs from country to country. Most prohibit visual depictions of sexual activities involving actual children under a specified age."

Hmph. I think that qualifies.

Then so does the rape scene in A Time To Kill, where the young girl was not nude. Still a sexual activity, and she was a minor... so that was a child porn scene as well? Also, what about movie/tv that involves molestation of minors? Also child porn? Is the topic of sexual child abuse to be swept under the rug to the extent that it cannot be simulated? And why draw the line there when there are horrific simulations of pain, murder, torture, and misery coming out of Hollywood every year? I figure this one is tame by comparison.

[J pold]

Originally Posted by ernie

There was a similar controversy a few years back with oscar winning film American Beauty. Thora Birch was topless. She was 15 or 16 when it was filmed. Many people were up in arms over it. Then you watched the movie and found out that it was an honest scene and genuine scene that belonged in the movie. There was controversy with Brooke Shields. Just last year there was controversy with nicole kidman in "Birth" being in a tub with a 10 year old boy. Watching the film it was again an honest and genuine film where the scene fit.

.

Uhhhh…unless I missed a scence or 2that was Mena Suvari it was released in 1999 when she was 20, so unless it was filmed 4 or 5 years prior she would have been in her late teens

And just for a side note I am with FireFly on this one..
Not necessary at all

[VANFLAMESFAN]

Originally Posted by J pold

Uhhhh…unless I missed a scence or 2that was Mena Suvari it was released in 1999 when she was 20, so unless it was filmed 4 or 5 years prior she would have been in her late teens

And just for a side note I am with FireFly on this one..
Not necessary at all

Thora Birch played Kevin Spacey's daughter and there was a scene where she was topless where the neighbour with the vid camera(Ricky IIRC) was filiming Thora's character, she sees him and takes off her shirt. Mena Suvari's nude scene was when she was about to have sex with SPacey, that was near the end of the movie.

[FireFly]

I love that you're having me jump that far and havent' apparently even read what I said. The girl is 12. There is no reason for her to be nude. None. It's disturbing enough without having her nude.

I want you to think back to when you were 12 and tell me you were mature enough to make the decision to go nude in front of millions of people. I remember when I was 12 and the thing I wanted most in life was to be 'cool'.... Well I'm fairly certain an Oscar would make Dakota think everyone would think she was cool, no? A 12 year old does not have the mental faculties to make such a decision, I have NEVER met a 12 year old smart enough to make such a decision on her own. Of course her mother is going to say it's okay, Dakota stands to make millions from this, and to the person who said that it was only $5 million to make the movie and she likely didn't get a large salary, she'll likely get royalties from it, and make a buck off every person that watches the film... (I won't even comment on her making money from being nude.)

You're right, there is nothing wrong with the human body. I have no issues with a naked human of any age. I have issues with using a 12 year old girl to sell a film when it is unneccessary. I have issues with pretending it's needed to ensure an Oscar. I have issues with it being 'needed' for a rape scene to be more realistic.

What happens when Dakota turns 25 and realizes she's been turned into a ho by her mother, her agent and society at large? I mean, why should she stop at one nude scene at the age of 12? There's no reason to now. So she'll grow up doing more and more nude scenes, why? Because there's nothing wrong with the human body at age 12, why should there be at 14, maybe she should do a love scene? Nothing wrong with it at 16 as long as it's tastefully done, and by the time she's 20 everyone in America will know what she looks like naked. Perfect.

I know, I know, I'm jumping to the conclusion that we're exploiting this little girl who doesn't know enough to say no, and that we'll continue to do so. Alright then, why don't we look at the other side of the coin. What do all 12 year olds say? "But 'so and so' does it/has one, why can't I?" How will you feel about your 12 year old little girl telling you that Dakota Fanning took her shirt off for money and was filmed doing it, why can't she? Well isn't that just an excellent motivational tool for children? And not only that, she will likely get nominated/win an Oscar for doing so! Well if that's not reaffirming!


You know what, fine. You see having naked 12 year olds in movies, in rape scenes as fine and normal... nothing wrong with the human body. I see it as setting a really bad example for the future. I see it as exploiting a child you are only assuming has the ability to weigh the pros and cons of this. She's only 12 I repeat. 12 year olds do stupid things. That's what being 12 is like. There is no way she has properly weighed the pros and cons of doing a scene like that.

I'm not saying the topic should be swept under the rug because it can not be simulated, I'm saying that showing a nude 12 year old does not make it any more horrific, so why subject a 12 year old to that. Why tell her that it's okay to take her clothes off in a room full of strangers with a video camera and have a man jump on top of her? Why? Why do that to a child?

You keep looking at the images, I'm looking at Dakota and asking how this affects her.

Ah forget it. Go watch your naked 12 year olds and don't ask how doing a nude rape scene will affect their mental state. Just assume it'll be fine because her mom and agent say so.

[peter12]

Ah forget it. Go watch your naked 12 year olds and don't ask how doing a nude rape scene will affect their mental state. Just assume it'll be fine because her mom and agent say so.

The best point you made so far was the one about dirtballs just paying admission to get their rocks off. That kind of stuff will happen, I don't see why we should support that.

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

Then so does the rape scene in A Time To Kill, where the young girl was not nude. Still a sexual activity, and she was a minor... so that was a child porn scene as well?

I think that was the movie I was referring to earlier. As I recall the scene in that one, it didn't actually show her getting raped. You could see that a man went on top of her, then you saw his face as the victim would see it, then you saw her face crying.

To me it isn't what the scene is portraying that I have an issue with from an artistic point of view, it's the fact that the boundry is now getting pushed further back, and I think this time the line has gone too far.

And if you can honestly tell me that at age 12 you had the judgement of an adult to make these kinds of choices, then you had a different childhood than me; as most of my choices at age 12 weren't quite as mature. (I still stand by my decision to put firecrackers into apples; that was pretty cool!)

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by FireFly

This is wrong for one reason and one reason only. It's child pornography. She is underage, I don't care who consented to it. Old dirty men will be lining up to rent or buy this film. It's sick. And I have no problems with a rape scene, but I don't see how this can be classified as anything other than child porn.

I know what you are saying but it has to be in context. What about all the cards out there with naked babies on them or that picture with the naked baby swimming under water. Just because a little skin is showing doesn't mean it is child porn.

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

I know what you are saying but it has to be in context. What about all the cards out there with naked babies on them or that picture with the naked baby swimming under water. Just because a little skin is showing doesn't mean it is child porn.

The difference is that is being shown to illustrate the beauty of a human, as opposed to being about something sexual.

If the movie was about how she had been shipwrecked as a child and showed her running through a meadow half naked- while I still wouldn't nessesarily agree with it I could appreciate it for what it was intended to illustrate. This how every is being used to show a brutally violent sex scene. And that is the difference to me.

[Nehkara]

Originally Posted by ken0042

The difference is that is being shown to illustrate the beauty of a human, as opposed to being about something sexual.

If the movie was about how she had been shipwrecked as a child and showed her running through a meadow half naked- while I still wouldn't nessesarily agree with it I could appreciate it for what it was intended to illustrate. This how every is being used to show a brutally violent sex scene. And that is the difference to me.

That's where the difference lies. This is a scene meant to depict child abuse, not sex. The film addresses the issue of child sexual abuse and in order to be effective, the writer and director felt it needed to be done this way.

Firefly: In regards to your questions over Dakota's well being, I think she will be fine with it. She acts for a living. She has acted a lot... for a long time. These scenes are part of acting and if she was protected by her family and agent, I think she will be just fine.

[ernie]

Originally Posted by VANFLAMESFAN

Thora Birch played Kevin Spacey's daughter and there was a scene where she was topless where the neighbour with the vid camera(Ricky IIRC) was filiming Thora's character, she sees him and takes off her shirt. Mena Suvari's nude scene was when she was about to have sex with SPacey, that was near the end of the movie.

correct. thanks.

back to Dakota Fanning....I have to ask this question: Has anyone seen the scene or scenes in question? No they haven't so how can anyone comment on them? We have no idea how this was handled, how it was shot, the end result, how Dakota Fanning feels about it etc etc etc. We have a little bit of heresay from a press release.

From what I understand there are proper authorities are on hand and on set when minors are employed by a movie production. There is outside supervision independent of filmakers and parents. Their job is to make sure that the minor is not being exploited in any way. I'd have to imagine there was more than a hurdle of "if her parents say it's O.K. it's fine" to employ Dakota Fanning in this role.

How about atleast waiting for the finished product before condemning it.

[J pold]

Originally Posted by VANFLAMESFAN

Thora Birch played Kevin Spacey's daughter and there was a scene where she was topless where the neighbour with the vid camera(Ricky IIRC) was filiming Thora's character, she sees him and takes off her shirt. Mena Suvari's nude scene was when she was about to have sex with SPacey, that was near the end of the movie.

Turns out I did miss a scene or two

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by ken0042

The difference is that is being shown to illustrate the beauty of a human, as opposed to being about something sexual.

If the movie was about how she had been shipwrecked as a child and showed her running through a meadow half naked- while I still wouldn't nessesarily agree with it I could appreciate it for what it was intended to illustrate. This how every is being used to show a brutally violent sex scene. And that is the difference to me.

It's about abuse and not sex. Don't get me wrong, I think it is in poor taste but who knows what the scene will turn out to be. Maybe it is her running away from the Camera and all you see is her back. Big whoop. Hard to say without seeing the scene.

[Reaper]

Anyone else like watching slippery slope arguments?

(scans room for viewers)

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by FireFly

I love that you're having me jump that far and havent' apparently even read what I said. The girl is 12. There is no reason for her to be nude. None. It's disturbing enough without having her nude.

Well... I guess we can end it there. I don't find the human body 'disturbing' in any way, whether they're 1, 12, 20, or 90. Whether or not you find it acceptable is your call, but clearly the law allows for it.

Ah forget it. Go watch your naked 12 year olds and don't ask how doing a nude rape scene will affect their mental state. Just assume it'll be fine because her mom and agent say so.

I stated several times that I wouldn't watch the movie. I don't like intense stuff like that. My dislike of that genre of movie is no reason that it shouldn't be made, or that the scene shouldn't be done.

I just don't get how we can fantasize and glorify disgusting death in movies, but a 12 year old with her shirt off is crossing the line?

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

I just don't get how we can fantasize and glorify disgusting death in movies, but a 12 year old with her shirt off is crossing the line?

Adults are responsible for not only their actions, but the protection of children. I would say allowing a 12 year old on screen with her shirt off is not protecting that particular child very well.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by FireFly

Adults are responsible for not only their actions, but the protection of children. I would say allowing a 12 year old on screen with her shirt off is not protecting that particular child very well.

Sounds good, agree to disagree. I think Dakota is probably treated very well.

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

Sounds good, agree to disagree. I think Dakota is probably treated very well.

I'm sure she is, and will be in the future by all the dirty old men who like to masterbate to pictures of her 12 year old naked body.


I honestly can't believe anyone would think it's appropriate to view a 12 year old naked. I can't believe you agree that her, her mom, her agent, and the director should allow her to be put in front of millions of people while semi-nude. I can't believe you're defending it! What does that say exactly?