12 yr old Dakota Fanning in controversial new film role

[adorefaith]

"They’re a good Christian family," she said.

this woman scares me
and the article is spot on- dakota's PARENTS are the ones who deserve heavy questioning....those poor girls-

 

[Blondes]

In that case, forget what I said.

I really thought they would make something meaningful out this, but apparently not.

 

[Zen]

...Urgh.....I feel ill with this whole BS!!

 

[mellowdrama]

Since I am one of the few who’ve actually seen it, let me explain something important. There is no point that I can find to the child’s r*pe.--the Fox News reporter above

But doesn't she get it--the r*pe occurs while Dakota is miming Elvis, and the r*pe is committed by a teenaged milkman--these are clearly potent symbols of an entire generation's loss-of-innocence and, um, teenaged milkmen. This is depth psychology here, people. This is illuminating the hidden corners of the psyche, dredging the depths of human experience, in a non-flinching examination of the stark reality of victimization. By not taking this project on, the Weinstein brothers are just guaranteeing someone else will never come to terms, in a cathartic cinematic way, with the time they got raped by a teenaged milkman.

Sounds like another quashing of Art by the Patriarchy to me.

 

[*AndoraStar*]

This is not the first time a movie like this has been made. Is there a different between a 12 yr old being r*pe, or a 15 yr old? no!

The reality of it is that it's sad, but it happens in everyday life.. and that's terrible.

We all are blessed with the CHOICE.. either you see it or don't. But you can't judge a movie before you have in fact watched it.

 

[electricladyland]

I probably can't judge the movie, but I sure can decide I don't want to see a child raped on screen no matter how mature she is or how well choreographed it is. I can also decry the depiction of child r*pe as well as the actual fact of child r*pe. And I can lament the fact that we have become a society so desensitized to the violence perpetrated against children that some of us respond by saying "If you don't like it, don't watch it."

 

[Uchina]

The smoking gun has the scene up.

 

[electricladyland]

won't even look...

 

[Juliet]

Ugh I felt sick to my stomach when I read about this today in the news. It's not about it being done before, or to take an actress more seriously or have her more critically acclaimed - for instance winning an oscar. This is disturbing to me because Dakota is a young girl, and those making these decisions for her are obviously taking advantage of her. Because such a decision is wildly unappropriate. Why put her through something like that? I think it is too emotionally heavy for a young girl to take. I'm not underestimating her in any way, I do love this actress and think she is way ahead of her time, but come on a line has got to be drawn somewhere.

 

[Begotxu]

Did you say the same if the role was a murderer or sth like that?

Sorry but i can't understand it, this of the double morality exceds me, I hope someday people get as worried at this time with real things that happen every day in the world... it's sad yes, but it's real and a lot of people prefer turn off the face and go on with this life... and now that we are talking about AN ACTRESS(don't for get it) she does a fictitious scene, she cause all this commotion?
i'm sorry , but I cannot understand it and i'm triyng to do it but i can't understand it

 

[writergal28]

Wasn't the little girl raped (and I think murdered afterwards) in the movie "A Time to Kill"? I don't recall anyone saying anything when the movie came out. It was about 10 years ago.

 

[Anastasia]

Wasn't the little girl raped (and I think murdered afterwards) in the movie "A Time to Kill"? I don't recall anyone saying anything when the movie came out. It was about 10 years ago.

I think it's because it's Dakota. Not a virtually unknown child actress, but the wan, golden waif so many of us have seen in so many movies the last few years. So she "matters" more.

I was terribly disturbed and upset by A Time to Kill. The description of the Hounddog scene seems quite tame by comparison, but, I haven't seen it yet, and am just going by the words of the director.

While I'm reluctant to show fictional depictions of child r*pe/molestion on screen because it requires an actual child to act out something they've hopefully managed to avoid in their real lives; I don't think it should be hidden away and never addressed because it does happen to real children every single day, and silence perpetuates further violence and shame. I have zero problem with the reasonable depiction in fiction, because it makes people aware that yes, this does happen, more often than you'd like to think. On the other hand, I also think stuff like this is a field day for pedophiles. But those pervs can get their jollies from just about anything.

What I hate most about the whole thing is their eager comments that they hope it garners her an Oscar (which would lead to greater esteem, greater money, etc). As someone who was molested as a child, and who knows victims of child r*pe, I think Dakota/her mother/the producers/whoever are absolutely vile and revolting. There isn't a shred of decency or compassion in advertising your quest to profit from something as devastating as childhood sexual abuse. I bet anything that we'll eventually see indepth interviews with Dakota where she tells us how she knows exactly how it really feels because the movie was just SO well made

 

[outdoorminer]

Did anyone see the Soup this week? They showed a clip from MSNBC - it was Chris Ansen? or someone named like that. He saw the movie. Whether he was talking about the film or the r*pe scene, it was funny - he said that it was "better in my imagination." hahah

 

[Juliet]

What I hate most about the whole thing is their eager comments that they hope it garners her an Oscar (which would lead to greater esteem, greater money, etc). As someone who was molested as a child, and who knows victims of child r*pe, I think Dakota/her mother/the producers/whoever are absolutely vile and revolting. There isn't a shred of decency or compassion in advertising your quest to profit from something as devastating as childhood sexual abuse. I bet anything that we'll eventually see indepth interviews with Dakota where she tells us how she knows exactly how it really feels because the movie was just SO well made

Yeah that's what was bothering me most.. and I haven't seen Time to Kill, but it sounds worse by what you are saying about it! Anyway like Dakota said "What's done is done" so she went through that, and she pretended to be raped and was half naked in scenes and what have you... and now there's nothing we can do about that. As for them keeping the scenes in there for more profits, and sick pedophiles particularly enjoying them.. maybe there's something people can do about that, which I hope they do. But I think it sucks noone stopped the acting from happening in the first place!

 

[kissmesweet]

This is controversial, but it's always good to push boundaries. Dakota is cute though, but tad boring. I'm not convinced by her acting, but I still don't see a problem with the movie...

 

[PrinceOfCats]

Better him, in any event, than Deborah Kampmeier, whose competition film Hounddog had already earned the scorn of the Christian right before it ever arrived at the festival, mostly owing to a fleeting r*pe scene involving the 12-year-old child star Dakota Fanning. As is almost always the case, that controversy turns out to be more noteworthy than the movie itself—an unrelentingly unpleasant Southern gothic about a barefoot backwoods urchin (Fanning) whose habit of dancing suggestively to the titular Elvis Presley single sparks the desire of an acne-riddled milkman and ultimately leads to the now-notorious act of deflowering. She too is then rehabilitated by a kindly black man, who teaches her to sing the real blues and explains that anyone can be a "******" regardless of their skin color. Thanks, Sundance.

villagevoice.com

 

[electricladyland]

i'm having To Kill a Mockingbird flashbacks

 

[pavement]

I saw Fanning on TV defending it. She didn't appear to be a victim.

I was hoping that this film would be moving in some way atleast. But if it's a bunch of rubbish, then screw it. It's like they made a controversial movie just to make money, and not to say anything important. If it turns out to be of the latter variety, then I would support it.

 

[Anastasia]

I saw Fanning on TV defending it. She didn't appear to be a victim.

Children don't always know what's best for them, even if they think they do. That's why we have laws protecting them from themselves, in sexual and legal areas, and from people who want to exploit them by claiming children are fully capable of making adult decisions (eg NAMBLA). Age of consent laws exist for very important reasons and the effort by some to systematically dismantle them is more disturbing to me than almost anything currently going on in society. And even children who are victimized by something real don't often show it in a way that the general public would understand.

I don't know if Dakota is traumatized or not, she probably isn't. It sounds cold, but her personal wellbeing isn't one of my concerns when objecting to the content of the movie.

That review from the Village Voice makes it sound like complete crap, and I hope it bombs, if only to deprive Dakota and her mother of the Oscar they're so publicly salivating over.

 

[FashionJunkie]

^That's harsh, but i agree 100% with you. I don't understand people, they will do anything for money and fame.