Critics say a movie rape scene in which 12-year-old Dakota Fanning plays the victim may violate federal child porn laws.

http://find.msn.com/search.aspx?q=Dakota+Fanning&c=0127...a+Fanning&form=MSNH1

Some critics and parents are up in arms about the new film "Hounddog" in which 12-year-old child star Dakota Fanning is shown in a rape scene. Critics claim the film violates federal child-pornography laws, but Fanning says otherwise. “It’s a movie, and it’s called acting. I’m not going through anything.”

I have not looked at the site, but I support in principle the idea that the television and film industry avoid sneaking pornographic elements into so-called 'drama' even if the end result is vindication.

Some of the very popular crime dramas, the investigative ones, are way too graphic, in my opinion, as they lovingly depict scenes of the most horrific cruelty. They dwell way too long on the faces of the victims - usually women.

But as they move into the area of depicting sexual violence against children, they have definitely crossed the line between decency and pandering.

Remember that for someone who has already had fantasies of child rape, depiction of the act serves only to make the fantasist believe that it is not so uncommon after all: it gives him 'permission' to enjoy the scene. And as we know, fantasy leads to planning.

There was similar talk when Brooke Shields did "Pretty Baby" and Jodi Foster did "Taxi Driver." Both of those were excellent films. (I haven't seen Fanning's so I can't comment.)

The accusation of child porn is valid, to a degree, but I think the old test, about intent, is the differeing factor. Real child porn is intended to appeal to pedophiles, to titillate. The roles of Foster and Shields were not in the film to pander to pedophiles, even though I will stipulate that in both cases, they did exactly that. But it must be realized that almost anything on screen stimulates someone. (Remember the Vietnamese bar owner in "Good Morning, Vietnam? He wanted nude pictures of Walter Brennan. ) I think in film, you have to take the sum of all the parts of the film to determine if it is porn or obscene in any way: intent, plot, safeguards, actual images rather than imagery,* etc. (In the recent version of "Lolita", a pillow or cushion was always between Jeremy Irons' ...hips...and Dominique Swain whenever there was apparent intimate contact.) Did the male rape scene in "Deliverance" pander to homosexual rapists, or was it just part of a larger story? I can't remember which SCOTUS justice said this, but it fits. "I can't define obscenity, but I know it when I see it."


*You may be amazed at how many people remember seeing Janet Leigh getting stabbed by Anthony Perkins in "Psycho" despite the fact that not one image was seen or even filmed of any stabbing into (real or imagined) flesh. Nor would you have though she was nude had she not been in a shower. But ask people what they actually saw, and many will tell you that they saw her nude and getting stabbed.

DG-When you mentioned Taxi Driver with Jodi Foster, it also reminded me of another movie I'd seen her in about that time. "The Little Girl Who Lives Down the Lane" which according to what I found, came out in 1976. And her character did appear nude.

http://movies.aol.com/movie/the-little-girl-who-lives-d...ane/1020953/synopsis

Jodie Foster was fourteen at the time of filming and refused to appear nude. Thus, her older sister, Connie Foster, was used as her double in the film's brief nude sequence. - The Internet Movie Database

From the credits -

Other crew
Claudio Arrau....musician: piano
Blanche-Danielle Boileau....wardrobe assistant (as Blanche Boileau)
Micheline Bonin ....production accountant
Peter S. Buchanan.... production executive
Connie Foster....double: Jodie Foster
+++++++++++++++++++++
From Wikipedia

During the filming of both Taxi Driver and The Little Girl Who Lives Down the Lane her stand-in was her older sister, Connie.
+++
Censorship

In order to earn a PG rating, the US version of the film differs from the international release in two ways. First, a line of dialog containing an expletive is absent in the US version. Second, the international cut contains a scene in which Rynn is naked, with her buttocks and part of her breast visible. (Jodie Foster's body double for that scene was her older sister Connie, who was 21 at the time.) MGM's Region 1 DVD for the film contains the international version of the film, though the packaging still lists the PG rating. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Little_Girl_Who_Lives_..._the_Lane#Censorship

DG says,

quote:

I think the old test, about intent, is the differeing factor.

In exploitation films, the intent is to make money. It can be dressed up with a 'message' to get past the censors ("Oh, isn't child prostitution just awful, meanwhile let's watch another 90 minutes of action, we can imagine what's not explicitly depicted."

The intent of all films is to make money. But how they make it is as different as a photo from Hustler is from a Rubens

[QUOTE]Originally posted by DorianGreyed:]
During the filming of both Taxi Driver and The Little Girl Who Lives Down the Lane her stand-in was her older sister, Connie.
QUOTE]

I'd always wondered how they handled that.

DG says: "The purpose of all films is to make money." That's obviously a gross oversimplification.

I'll concede that all films made for commercial distribution hope to make money. And I won't muddy the waters by pointing out that every year there are thousands of art films, educational films, nature films and documentaries that hope, at best, to recover their costs of production.

But some filmmakers, like some novelists, have a message that they want to express to like-minded people, and their primary purpose is to speak their truth.

I will illustrate.

Suppose I wish to make a picture about child pornography; let's say that (in my assumed role for the purpose of this post) as a photo-journalist I have just learned the extent and the callous brutality involved. I decide that rather than make a documentary, I can reach people better if I fictionalize

With whom am I trying to communicate?

If I am sincere, with those who can make a difference, and affect public policy. I want to open the public's eyes to what is going on.

I might pick a subject, a little peasant boy who is kidnapped and taken to a site in Bangkok, where, along with dozens of other children, he is locked indoors. The psychological 'preparation' for his 'job' would be the breakdown of his sense of self, so he will be a willing subject. This procedure would be worth filming. One would have to be careful to prepare the child actor so that he would not confuse such teaching with anything in real life. For example, the child might be given instructions and about school work, and later have the demeaning statements dubbed over.

It would be effective to dramatize the boy's rape. It would be necessary for the purposes of the film to show the child's fear and pain.

But there need be no graphic representation of the penetration, with or without strategically placed pillows or hip angles. And the rapist/pimp/customer should be portrayed as a vicious, disgusting creature, there should be plenty of film devoted to his facial expressions and his complete callousness to the plight of the boy. Again the film should be made very skilfully, with shots and cuts made in such a way that the child actor does not (at that time) understand what is being represented.

(I recall that when Pretty Baby was released, much of the reaction centred around the shock people felt that Shilds' parents would permit her to be exploited in such a film.)

There would be no simple filming of the act of rape so that a deviate viewer could take pleasure in it, or identify with the rapist.

The true exploitation film lovingly dwells on the very things which the 'message' film will take great care not to dwell on, lest they pander to the very industry (child prostitution) that they pretend to condemn. Then they make pious, sentimental mouthings at the end of the film so it will not be condemned as pornography.

Of course one might take the position that there should be no censorship at all, and that 'snuff' DVD's should be sold at corner stores and shown in schools.

I have nothing further to say on this topic. Those who understand, understand. Those who do not make not-so-subtle distinctions may do as they wish.

You are right that my comment about movies making money was an oversimplification, but we aparently disagree with what an explotation film is, and how a film that deals with child explotation should be made. Both Shields and Foster understood their roles as a child prostitute, and neither seemed to be harmed from it, as witnessed by their graduation from an Ivy League school (both in 4 years, if I remember correctly), and, with the exception of Shields' post partum depression, both seem to be much more successfullty adjusted to life than many former child stars who made family-type movies and TV shows. Each of their roles resulted in a film that was nominated or won for an international award. Foster was nominated for an Oscar in her role, along with winning and being nominated for several other aweards. Pretty Baby was nominated for the Golden Palm at the Cannes Film Festival, and Taxi Driver won the award.

What a load of hooey!

Yeah, it probably does violate "the law"- being that the laws are so vague and leave so much room for interpretation- and being that these kinds of laws are written and passed by hysterical laymen, instead of rational attorneys.

Did you know that anyone who looks at or distributes a child's picture, even fully clothed, could technically be prosecuted for kiddie porn, if the state can prove that they receive pleasure or sexual gratification in doing so?

And, then we have real porn sites based in foreign countries where the legal age of an adult is 16, posting pics where it is legal. Then these pics are downloaded and distributed around the internet. The mere possession of which in, say, the U.S., violates child porn laws!

In Fact, you could go to prison for merely looking at a porn site which is perfectly legal in the country in which it is put up!

Sorry, DG, said I wouldn't post again but I have to clear up a couple of things in view of your recent post.

I saw neither Taxi Driver nor Pretty Baby. So I have no opinion as to whether they were exploitative or not. I mentioned public reaction to the use of a 'real' 12-year-old re Brook Sheilds. Since I didn't see the movie, I can't say whether I share those reactions. I made the reference to make the point that one should be aware of the possible effect that acting that sort of role might have on a child.

I did see Little Girl on television, and saw nothing offensive in it. Some semi-nude scenes may have been cut for TV audiences, but I'm confident this film was not made to pander to pedophiles. The pedophile was represented as a loathesome person, and his mother as an irresponsible bitch.

I have not seen Hounddog nor will I see it.

My comments were general, that we should distinguish between (1)films which piously condemn child pornography while depicting scenes which would tittilate a pedophile and (2) films which deal honestly with the subject.

I favor "the television and film industry avoid sneaking pornographic elements into so-called 'drama' even if the end result is vindication."

We need to be aware that "[pornography] can be dressed up with a 'message' to get past the censors..."

I think we generally agree, Babs, with what I see as minor differences.