Underage actors nude scenes?

[clukosiuk]

Is anyone else seriously disturbed by the fact that underage actresses are still doing nude and sexual scenes?

The days of Brooke Shields acting as a child prostitute, involving nude scenes and sexual explicit scenes(she was acting as a child prostitute, of course it is sexually explicit) are not over.

Dakota Fanning(War of the Worlds, Man on Fire etc...) is currently filming a movie in which she has to do several nude scenes and be RAPED in one particular scene. Not only is she going to be doing nude scenes, this 12 year old will be pretending to be raped while nude....

"It's not just the rape scene - the whole story is challenging Dakota as an actress," Fanning's longtime agent, Osbrink, told me. "And I've never been so proud of her in my life. I've seen the dailies, and in every scene she gets better and better."

Apparently both her agent and her mother see this movie as vehicle for Dakota to win an Oscar...

Source

Am I the only one who feels someone should go arrest the mother, agent and anyone else involved in this child pornography?

 

[Nickthegreek]

No, you're not. I'm with you on this one.

 

[Aeros]

It's difficult to have an adult actress play a 12 year old child, but they should at least be using body doubles for the "challenging" scenes.

 

[AgilityMan]

She's 12 for gods sake! Fine if you want to have a kid getting raped as part of a plot and showing something either side of it but actually simulating it is gross.

 

[JN]

Under-aged nudity can only be granted if the childs (boy or girl) Parent give the consent and is integral to the plot/character development and is done tastefully.

For example - Keira Knightly (Pirates of the Carribbean babe) in one of her earlier roles 'The Hole' she was actually only 16.

One has to be 18 (Eighteen) to be legally nude in film without Parental consent.

12yr old nude is way too creepy even if it is 'tastfully done' and is edited around the nudity ie you dont 'see' anything.

As much as I see Dakota Fanning as a child prodigy in acting she can easily win an Oscar without doing nudity at this or any other stage.

I dont envy studios who try to tackle films that contain a storyline on paedophilia, its one of (if not THE) worst taboos to go up against.

The movie Hard Candy, where a paedophile is tortured by a young under-aged girl was slated to be both 'too sympathetic to paedos' as well as 'inciting others to do the same'.

Kevin Bacon's The Woodsman, where he played a child abuser recently coming out of jail and seriously wanting to redeem himself was also deemed too sympathetic to such offenders.

Nope not nice

 

[justsomedude]

Still is disgusting, there have been parents who abuse their children and make child pornography with them...parents should not have the right to allow a minor to have nude scenes or to act like they are getting raped while naked.

As to the tasteful part, there have been "tastefully" done porno...

There is NO real reason to have a minor take their clothes off to make a movie, or to have them act like they are getting raped.

 

[MreBaker]

Yea, nothing explicit about a 12 year having nude scenes in a movie...

Nothing explicit about her pretending to be raped, it's not like rape is graphic or anything...



Pornographic material- Child nudity and rape scenes involving children seems like child porn to me...The fact that there is a "plot" doesn't mean squat.

Do I really think someone will let something bad happen to her? Your right, because we all know how well other child stars have been treated.....The fact is Hollywood has a terrible track record with child stars, and allowing a 12 year to do nude scenes and act like she is getting raped is just a continuance of that.



Again there have been numerous cases in which a child's parent brings that child into pornography, so the fact her parents are fine with it means little.

Not gratuitous? She is nude, acting out a rape scene, and is 12. Can't get much worse than that unless you actually have her raped on film and say it was for "authenticity" purposes.



Really, your not disturbed that an underage child is going to be exploited by her parents, agents, and lawyers who are allowing her to be put into a situation in which she does several nude scenes and must act as if she is being raped?

The industry will not allow anyone under the age of 17 to see a woman's breasts in theater, but they will allow children under 17 to actually be naked?

If they can do nude scenes surely they can see nude scenes?

 

[mysti]

There's plenty of models who look like 12 years olds. Use them.

 

[honeybunny]

that doesnt help imo ... some sicko will get their kicks out of that scene ... it should not be filmed ... there is no need to show what happens in child rape - I think we already know.

 

[Conservative1st]

The relelvant bit from the article:
just sounds like scaremongering. It actually tells you very little. The story calls for Fanning's character to be raped. So not Fanning herself! The fact that they describe an "explicit scene" tells you very little - what is explicit? It's just newspaper hyperboly. The fact that Fanning appears in her underpants is neither here nor there. Really, they would not let anything bad happen to high-profile millionairess Dakota Fanning.

I agree with you there. They shouldn't be filming an explicit scene with a young-looking actress pretending to be a child. They don't need to graphically show these things.


There will absolutely not be a scene where a naked Dakota Fanning simulates sexual contact with a naked man. It won't happen. The newspaper is trying to whip up controversy, nothing more.


I do not care if Dakota Fanning is willing to appear naked in a story if she has no problems doing it. On the other hand, I would have problems if she was asked to graphically depict being raped however, I strongly believe that this will not happen. I think the newspaper is exaggerating.


I think it's about context. I could be wrong but I'd be willing to bet that even complete adult nudity would be acceptible in a PG movie as long as it was in a non-sexual context. I'm just trying to think of a good example. Ok, I think it's 1492 Conquest of Paradise (but I could be wrong) which has a lot of native american women appearing topless in the name of historical authenticity. I'm pretty sure this is a PG movie (it was on at lunch time on a Sunday on British TV when I saw it) but because they're not displaying themselves in a sexual manner then it's considered (quite rightly) harmless. So it's sexual activity that the rating system is designed to protect kids from, not nudity.

I think whether the movie we're talking about is harmful or not depends on whether there's a graphic scene of Dakota Fanning being raped. If, as you seem to think, there is such a scene then I agree, this is distasteful. If, as I believe, they won't film such a scene, then it's harmless (if possibly still distasteful in other ways).

 

[AlexaB]

I personally don't think it's right at all, but her mother and agent obviously do. There world must revolve around getting an Oscar (which is pretty sad for a 12 year old to have to go to that extend to MAYBE get one.) It's gonna be a paedophile's heaven.

 

[AlexisInfectious®]

Wrong, Dakota acted out the rape scene but she was wearing a body suit.

"
The production coordinator for "Hounddog" says Dakota fanning was wearing a body suit during the entire rape scene and there was a child welfare worker on the set, along with Dakota's agent and her mother. "

Source


Now maybe it is just me, but the fact that a 12 year was wearing a "body suit"(skintight leotard-like undergarment) when she was acting out a rape scene isn't much better than if she was actually nude.

A 12 year old should not be asked to act out a rape scene, nor should she be asked to act it out while wearing a revealing outfit like leotard.

As to not letting any harm come to her because of her status, are you nuts?

Drew Barrymore was drinking alcohol at age 9, smoking weed at age 10, and snorting cocaine at age 12.





Then why have 12 years do it?

I would rather have an 18 year old do it, as they are at least old enough to give consent and understand the implications.



Your right, she was not naked, she was wearing a bodysuit.



She is 12, should she be able to drink alcohol if she wants to?

How about work in a strip club?



Your wrong, almost always a naked female(from behind) earns a PG-13 or R rating.

Frontal nudity(no genitalia) earns an R rating almost automatically.

 

[lemama87]

without seeing the movie, this whole controversey is premature.

 

[shellmae80]

lol... no pun intended?

 

[atomicdoug171]

Sensationalism has reared it's ugly head again. Our world has reached the point that very little can shock us anymore, so what do we do? Child Porn in the form of "art"?.


In days gone by the film industry would have used a shadowy image on a wall and sounds to portray something like this. What ever happened to that idea in movie making?

It's a sick thought to have thie idea in a movie let alone actually show the scene.

Chalk up another reason to join Net Flix.

 

[charm:t]

OK, that is pretty grim. I stand corrected. I would've thought they'd show more taste than that.

 

[Sammyboy50]

The least they could do was use a double, or even CGI for that scene. I am not sure how a 12 year old can act the particular subject matter. If the movie calls for it, portrays it approprietly and has a point then it is fine by me, but spin crap like "the whole story is challenging Dakota as an actress" annoys me. She is 12. What did she do to prepare for the part, chat with other underage rape victims? What if someone asks how she felt for that particular scene? I don't think they will.

I could go on but there is no point. It is done now, and the whole thing depends on how exactly the rape scene is filmed and how the character is handled in the film. I just hope that they had the necessary support and advice at all times for their cash cow - i mean star actress.

PS: For what it's worth, i find the term "child pornography" really inappropriate, bordering on moral panic. Not that the media are shy of that...

 

[SellinFunklRockz]

Where!? I have yet to encounter such a thing, and that is something I'd like to see.

 

[HillaryC]

Hi All,

Well since I only go and see movies that have a huge feel good factor and a happy ending I doubt that I'll be seeing this one.

The whole issue of child workers (in any industry) is one that is complex and can only be judged by us as individuals from our 'local' viewpoint - What I mean by that is that the age for work / drink / sexual consent / etc varies so much from country to country.

So for ME with my British prejudices I'd say that to film a 12 year old in a rape scene is wrong.

Of course the simple answer is to show your disapproval by not seeing the film when released - Hollywood is VERY responsive to good and bad box office receipts!!!

All the best.

Robert.

 

[krrazikat]

That's a terrible argument against- more sickies have probably got their jollies off watching old Shirley Temple films then anything else. And if you don't believe me, watch a few a few and come back and tell me the studio didn't purposefully make her costuming as provocative as possible.

Now, not having seen the film I can't say if it is excessive or not, and truth of the matter, I probably will not even make an effort to see the film. But considering that SHE knows it was fake, that her mother was probably there the entire time, that there were probably over fifty adults in the room AND a social worker, I highly doubt she walked away with any trauma from the experience. I think what is happening here is a lot of projection on the part of some members here.