What do you think? Just gunning for an Oscar or
making great films?
Twelve year old Dakota Fanning is filming one movie right now called Hounddog where she plays a young girl who is physically abused and in one scene is raped. It's a pedophile scene.
Her next upcoming project which she is rumored to play Susie in The Lovely Bones, where the character is raped and murdered and dismembered, and is recalling her story from heaven as she watches her family struggle with her death.
Now where the controversy comes in is here, in Hounddog, the girl is alive all through the movie, she has scenes where she is appeared to be naked and some where she just wears panties.
In Lovely Bones, the character is dead already and they may or may not show her actual rape and murder.
Also, Bones is a well known book, heck, it was on Oprah's book list for a long time, top 10 best seller for months. Hounddog is not.
It's an obscure screenplay, a director who isn't super famous.
Peter Jackson will be making Bones and Deborah Kampmeier is making Hounddog, she only has one other title to her credit and it's called Virgin.
Dakota's mother and her agent, had this to say in regards to her role in Houndog; "as a possible Oscar vehicle for the pint-size star."
Both movies will have the star raped. Both movies are equally disturbing in my book.
People are screaming that allowing the actress to film the scenes herself is akin to actual child abuse and an adult actress should be used as a body double during the scenes.
Do you think it's a form of child abuse to allow a twelve year old to actually film these scenes herself and second, do you think more of a fuss is being made about Hounddog because it's by an unknown director whereas Jackson is very well known?
And third, do you think her mother is off her damn rocker for letting her child star in roles where she will be raped in hopes of her child getting an Oscar?
I personally think her mother is fucking crazy, but I also think Fanning is an excellent little actress. Very reminiscent of Jodie Foster when she was a kid starring in Taxi Driver and other works.
Comments
Yes, I think the mother is nuts, too. I do think that more of a fuss is being made over Hounddog because of the relatively unknown director. Yes, the movies both sound very disturbing. I definitely think an adult body double should be used.
Posted by: Belle | July 24, 2006 12:37 AM
Isn't such a movie, whether or not an adult is used as a double, illegal? Any depiction of a child involved in a sexual nature is considered "obscence", whether or not it is a mainstream film or pornography. With that in mind, I have to believe there will be very little of the violent acts sirectly shown, if any. As for exposing the child to the filming of the scene, I can't say a child actor is so naive as to be scarred by this. Actors understand the difference between reality and films.
Posted by: John | July 24, 2006 9:02 AM
I would never let my child in that situation. How would that affect her is my concern. Would she show signs of being messed up? But then her Mom made the comment that she is a talented actress and had her daughter decide if she wanted to or not. I really don't know if I could watch them movies, I don't want to remember her for the pain in the movies.
Posted by: Christie | July 24, 2006 9:07 AM
Yes, I think it is abuse. Yes, I think the Jackson flick will be hyped up and yes, I think Mom is crazy for allowing her daughter do do this as a means of earning an Oscar nomination. As the mother of a 12 year old girl, I can't even bear to think of something like that happening to my little girl. I couldn't imagine kicking back with a mocha latte while watching my kid film a scene like that.
Posted by: Brandi | July 24, 2006 8:45 PM
1st Brokeback Mountain now this sht... Hollywood is going too far! Why do they feel the need to show the subject in such a inappropriate and graphic way? For example, in A Time To Kill, there were no nude/physical rape scenes in that movie; but you knew that the little girl got raped. What's next? This scene is unnecessary and just disturbing!
Posted by: SuriNotCruise's | July 25, 2006 8:58 AM
I think Dakota Fanning has a job and she does it well. I would seriously doubt she would be seen naked in a movie, I would expect a body double for that. Her mother sounds like every other hollywood mother and probably should just shut the F up. If the scenes are disturbing then the director and Dakota have done their job well and have brought forward an issue in america that occurs more frequently than we care to admit. Actors are always wanting to push their abilities and this should be a good test for her. Form of child abuse? No, it's a job. A fuss over the movie? Yes that's how tickets are sold these days for lesser known movies.
Posted by: ozone ferd | July 25, 2006 1:31 PM
This is just wrong.
Posted by: Rebel | July 26, 2006 8:30 AM