PDA

View Full Version : Sex Scenes in Dakota Fanning Film Stir Up Controversy



BAMAPHIN 22
01-27-2007, 04:00 PM
http://www.finheaven.com/clear.gif



Dakota Fanning is known for playing cute, little girls, but her latest film role is more controversial than cute.

In her new film, "Hounddog," an independent film that debuted at the Sundance Film Festival, Fanning, 12, plays a troubled 12-year-old who is sexually abused by her father.

Some of that abuse is depicted in the movie, and critics are wondering why such a young actress was cast in such a graphic role.
Paul Petersen, a former child star of "The Donna Reed Show," is one of those critics.



"A child was engaged in seamy portrayals for commercial purposes," Petersen said. "There is no legal authority for anyone to subject a child to this."


http://www.abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=2815186

King Felix
01-27-2007, 04:02 PM
wwwwtf :lol:

Pagan
01-27-2007, 04:05 PM
I've heard about this. Could prove useful. Send police to all the theaters, and arrest the obvious pedophiles who will show up to see it. :wink:

Ray Finkle
01-27-2007, 04:06 PM
I've heard about this. Could prove useful. Send police to all the theaters, and arrest the obvious pedophiles who will show up to see it. :wink:

I wonder if Pee Wee Herman found out about this movie yet.

Quelonio
01-27-2007, 04:55 PM
I wonder if Pee Wee Herman found out about this movie yet.

I thought his problem was not pedophilia, he was just seen *********ing in a movie theater, watching porn. Not necessarily child porn.

I like that they dared to make this movie like that, and I like that Dakota decided to try something like that, and move away from just being cutesy (which she isnt, she is more creepy than cute)

JSwerdy
01-27-2007, 05:07 PM
I thought his problem was not pedophilia, he was just seen *********ing in a movie theater, watching porn. Not necessarily child porn.

I like that they dared to make this movie like that, and I like that Dakota decided to try something like that, and move away from just being cutesy (which she isnt, she is more creepy than cute)


yea but when they searched his house following his arrest they found a literal library of child porn

bullseyeguy
01-27-2007, 05:22 PM
yea but when they searched his house following his arrest they found a literal library of child pornUntrue...They found a handful of old artwork pieces that were of minors, pictures that were taken hundreds of years ago...He was never convicted of child pornography...

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/pwmotion1.html

Prakk
01-27-2007, 05:27 PM
I've heard about this. Could prove useful. Send police to all the theaters, and arrest the obvious pedophiles who will show up to see it. :wink:I like your thinking....

Roman529
01-27-2007, 05:35 PM
Her mom was there and was ok with the scenes,,,,,I guess if she is ok with this and her daughter is too, then it is up to the everyone else to decide whether they want to see this. It's not something I want to see...just like the sickos who enjoy abusing animals. :mad:

JSwerdy
01-27-2007, 05:37 PM
Untrue...They found a handful of old artwork pieces that were of minors, pictures that were taken hundreds of years ago...He was never convicted of child pornography...

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/pwmotion1.html

i stand corrected, i looked him up in wikipedia (not like its the most reliable of sources, but it works for topics like this) and it mentions the first arrest was for the movie theater incident and no child porn charges, the second arrest in 2002
Reubens was arrested again in 2002 in connection with an investigation involving child pornography (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_pornography). Public news stories concerning his case cast doubt upon the suggestion that Reubens intentionally acquired child pornography, as he stated that he was a collector of "erotic artwork" and that he had a sizable collection of vintage erotica (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erotic_art) with samples dating back to the 18th century. On March 19 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_19), 2004 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004), child pornography charges against him were dropped by Los Angeles City Attorney Rocky Delgadillo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocky_Delgadillo) after Reubens pleaded guilty to a separate "misdemeanor obscenity" charge.
According to NNDB.com (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NNDB), "The DA waited 364 days (one day before the statute of limitations would have run out) and then alleged that some of it was 'child pornography' -- decades-old physique poses, old art photos, and yellowed nudist magazines. Some of the nude photos were of minors -- when the pictures were taken, but most of the models would have been dead of old age before Reubens was born. All of the photos, Reubens maintained, were legal when they were first published. The charges were reduced to 'obscenity', and Reubens pleaded guilty and paid a $100 fine in exchange for probation." [2] (http://www.nndb.com/people/251/000025176/)

Ray Finkle
01-27-2007, 05:40 PM
I stand corrected too, I thought he had naked photos of little children when the cops searched his house too. My bad, sorry Pee Wee.

King Felix
01-27-2007, 05:42 PM
when this movie comes out your gonna see like lonely 45 yr olds at the movies in line for that one :barf:

DonShula84
01-27-2007, 05:42 PM
I stand corrected too, I thought he had naked photos of little children when the cops searched his house too. My bad, sorry Pee Wee.


Apology accepted...

brandon27
01-27-2007, 06:20 PM
http://a.abcnews.com/images/Entertainment/apg_fanning_061214_sp.jpg



Dakota Fanning is known for playing cute, little girls, but her latest film role is more controversial than cute.



Seriously? I've only seen her in War of the Worlds and Hide and Seek... all she did was scream her face off! Which got annoying, very quickly. But the reaction to this new movie should be pretty insteresting indeed.

Hellion
01-28-2007, 01:07 AM
It was either CNN or Foxnews but they had on critics of the movie and from what one lady said is that Dakota was wearing what is called a nude suite and the scene is extremely short and it shows less than if she wore a bikini. also a pad is used (even in adult sex scenes) so there isn't any contact between the actors. The mother aproved the scene. that being said
The real controversy seems to be that the 12 year old is actually doing the scene instead of a body double. I agree if the scene is that short then what is the point in Dakota doing it? if she wants to be an actress that devotes herself to her craft then let her do it when she is 18.

Another question, how long (if not already) will it be before she is snorting coke getting drunk and sueing her parents?

But if it's the content of the movie that is getting peoples panties in a bunch that's too bad because unfortunately this happens more than we like to know. And it may actually wake more people up to the abuse childen go through.

Pagan
01-28-2007, 01:17 AM
How much you want to bet she's the second coming of young Drew Barrymore?

Hellion
01-28-2007, 01:20 AM
How much you want to bet she's the second coming of young Drew Barrymore?

Exactly

muscle979
01-28-2007, 01:22 AM
Seriously? I've only seen her in War of the Worlds and Hide and Seek... all she did was scream her face off! Which got annoying, very quickly. But the reaction to this new movie should be pretty insteresting indeed.

She's in Man on Fire with Denzel Washington. She's also the voice of Lilo in Lilo and Stitch. (I have kids OK) I know there are other movies but I can't think of them off the top of my head.

HysterikiLL
01-28-2007, 03:03 AM
Apology accepted...


:lol:

Quelonio
01-28-2007, 04:24 AM
How much you want to bet she's the second coming of young Drew Barrymore?

Or could she end up like the second coming of jodie foster?

Barrymore is not a good comparison since she did not really do parts like this when she was a kid, quite the opposite she only did cutie parts. Foster is a better comparison, she did play a prostitute when she was a kid, Brooke shields would also be a good comparison, since she played a kid and had full nudity in a french movie.

The scene does not show anything, she was not naked when she did it, it is only the theme, and it is implied. Sexual abuse on kids is a theme that is used in movies because it is compelling and makes for good dramatic sequences, and great characters... how is this movie different but for the response and the fact that Fanning was already a star?

Hellion
01-28-2007, 05:40 AM
What does the type of roles have to do with it. It's more to do with her support system, i.e. Parents and agent, what are their real intentions and how will the young girl react to the pressures of performing at a high level at such a young age. Specially if a new young and up and coming actress rivals her.
I think what helped Jodie Foster and Brook Shields is that they took time off from the business to prusue an education. I think it took the pressure off of them and gave them time to reflect on the direction of their careers. As well it may have gave the public time to maybe forget about them a little so they are not so overly exposed.
I don't think in anyway myself or Pagan (not that I speak for Pagan) were refering to her possible down fall as a result of the type of roles she plays in, but the enviroment and nature of the business.
If you had to place bets on past success of child stars what direction would you say is most likely for young Dakota Fanning?

Lets hope her path is more like Fosters and less like Barrymores.

DisturbedShifty
01-28-2007, 09:37 AM
What I love it when the media jumps on the "It's horrible. You should not go see this movie" band wagon. Besides the sex scene, anybody heard what the movie is actually about? Yeah I saw that it is about a 12 year old girl who is abused by her father. But is there anymore to it than that? All the media is doing is fueling the box office gross out come of the movie. People will go see this movie just to see what has the media's underwear in a bunch.

Pagan
01-28-2007, 10:06 AM
Or could she end up like the second coming of jodie foster?

Barrymore is not a good comparison since she did not really do parts like this when she was a kid, quite the opposite she only did cutie parts. Foster is a better comparison, she did play a prostitute when she was a kid, Brooke shields would also be a good comparison, since she played a kid and had full nudity in a french movie.

The scene does not show anything, she was not naked when she did it, it is only the theme, and it is implied. Sexual abuse on kids is a theme that is used in movies because it is compelling and makes for good dramatic sequences, and great characters... how is this movie different but for the response and the fact that Fanning was already a star?
Q, I wasn't referring to the role either. I was talking about her as a person. Every time you see photos of her, she's not acting like the innocent little girl she portrays when she's on talk shows. She's usually looking like a midget Paris Hilton. That's what leads me to believe she might be the next Drew.

SCall13
01-28-2007, 10:24 AM
I can't believe her parents would allow her to play in such a movie.

KingCrowder
01-28-2007, 12:47 PM
yea but when they searched his house following his arrest they found a literal library of child porn


NO he said it was child ART. and surely art is porn.

rafael
01-28-2007, 01:09 PM
IMO it's the parent's call. Using an age like 18 is arbitrary. It really depends on maturity and the only ones in a position to judge that are her family.

Hellion
01-28-2007, 09:21 PM
IMO it's the parent's call. Using an age like 18 is arbitrary. It really depends on maturity and the only ones in a position to judge that are her family.

Wel Raf all i can say is show biz is littered with tons of parents of child stars and their abuse of money and the children, such as a lack of parental guidant’s other than to earn themselves a dollar.

But yet I do agree that it is up to the parent(s). You'd think with all the money the business rakes in that they could have a better support sytem for the children that help them earn money. If for nothing else but to be responsible adults and be concerned for child welfare in their own industry.

NaboCane
01-28-2007, 10:02 PM
Or could she end up like the second coming of jodie foster?

Barrymore is not a good comparison since she did not really do parts like this when she was a kid, quite the opposite she only did cutie parts. Foster is a better comparison, she did play a prostitute when she was a kid, Brooke shields would also be a good comparison, since she played a kid and had full nudity in a french movie.

The scene does not show anything, she was not naked when she did it, it is only the theme, and it is implied. Sexual abuse on kids is a theme that is used in movies because it is compelling and makes for good dramatic sequences, and great characters... how is this movie different but for the response and the fact that Fanning was already a star?

Also Brooke Shields, who played a prostitute when she was very young.

Hellion
01-28-2007, 10:13 PM
Again, the type of roles have nothing to do with it.

Sethdaddy8
01-28-2007, 11:00 PM
This is F'ed up. You know, they always call it "art"...or "for their craft". But its horse ****. You'd never see a brother and sister do a love scene on screen, and theres reasons for that. There is a line actors won't/shouldn't cross. This is crossing it.

Sethdaddy8
01-28-2007, 11:04 PM
What I love it when the media jumps on the "It's horrible. You should not go see this movie" band wagon. Besides the sex scene, anybody heard what the movie is actually about? Yeah I saw that it is about a 12 year old girl who is abused by her father. But is there anymore to it than that? All the media is doing is fueling the box office gross out come of the movie. People will go see this movie just to see what has the media's underwear in a bunch.


This movie could be an Oscar hopeful with a wonderful message for all of mankind...but a 12 yr old girl should not be simulating sex and doing things of a sexual nature (kissing, gropping, fondling for the sake of a film) IMO.

Quelonio
01-29-2007, 12:38 AM
This is F'ed up. You know, they always call it "art"...or "for their craft". But its horse ****. You'd never see a brother and sister do a love scene on screen, and theres reasons for that. There is a line actors won't/shouldn't cross. This is crossing it.

Ever seen los amantes del círculo polar? few movies are as beautiful as that movie, and the main plot is the love relationship between brother and sister. Or bernardo Bertoluccis last movie (which I can't really remember its title) is also about a love relationship between brother and sister. THat last one is not as good, but if I had never had an oportunity to see amantes del círculo polar just because they loved each other and that is "wrong" I would be a sad man, that movie is easily one of the best movies ever filmed.

And sorry for the misunderstanding. Yes I agree that every child star just seems like they ride a very fine line between being fortunate, and being at the edge of the abyss. But I thought you meant this role would create that, and I found that to be wrong.

Enforcerfin33
01-29-2007, 01:10 AM
Anyone old enough to remember the movie that Brooke Shields made when she was like, 11? She played a prostitute, I think. Different plot but same idea, way too young of an age to be playing those kind of roles.

FinsNCanes
01-29-2007, 01:13 AM
Its.a.movie.

You know kids who are that age 12-13 are having sex these days. I find it pretty crazy but it's not uncommon. Kids are growing up alot faster and know alot more at younger ages.

Anyone remember that movie that had the brother and sister locked up in the Attic and they ended up having a relationship? I wanna say Flowers in the Attic or something of that sort.

Enforcerfin33
01-29-2007, 01:22 AM
Its.a.movie.

You know kids who are that age 12-13 are having sex these days. I find it pretty crazy but it's not uncommon. Kids are growing up alot faster and know alot more at younger ages.

Anyone remember that movie that had the brother and sister locked up in the Attic and they ended up having a relationship? I wanna say Flowers in the Attic or something of that sort.
That doesn't make it right. And hollywood doesn't have to put it out there like that.

Hellion
01-29-2007, 02:12 AM
That doesn't make it right. And hollywood doesn't have to put it out there like that.

Well It's not that they shouldn't put it out there. A lot Hollywood films have reflected real life situations, I don't think this movie will be any different. Child abuse and rape happens in this world. It's how they are going about it by putting her (Fanning) in this situation. If Hollywood can make the cast of Star Wars look like they are in an alternet universe then they can put Dakota Fanning's face on a body double and make it look like she is getting sexually abused.

DonShula84
01-29-2007, 02:37 AM
It's one scene in the movie, she isnt naked, get over it.

Hellion
01-29-2007, 06:31 AM
It's one scene in the movie, she isnt naked, get over it.

If you don't like the discussion then don't read it or click on the thread. Other than that we have the right too.

I'm gonna guess you don't have kids, at least not in the 8 and up range. So lets look at it from another angle.

The scene in the movie is supposed to be short lets say 10 seconds long. So I give you a camera, and tell you to find parents with a 12 year old girl and ask them if you can dry hump her (both clothed) on camera for 10 seconds, but it's ok it's "art" a "film" your gonna sell it and make money and pay the parents. Now they agree to this.

Now think for a minute and use the same senerio but take the camera and the "art/Film" excuse out of the equation..

Whats the difference?



I don't care how mature she acts on Letterman or Leno, she's 12 and is only that articulate because she works with adults all day, not because she is mature beyond her years.

PhinzN703
01-29-2007, 02:22 PM
How much you want to bet she's the second coming of young Drew Barrymore?

In today's society, she's likely to be 10 times worse

Sethdaddy8
01-29-2007, 02:35 PM
people are missing my point a little. as far as movies go, in Taxi Driver, Jodie Foster is a 13 yr old prostitute, and thats fine, because she didn't have any simulated sex scenes. And in the hit show Rome, Octavious bangs his sister, and thas all good... But i'm saying, when making movies, some things shouldn't happen. You won't see John Cusack do a sex scene with Joan Cusack. David Arquette won't do his sisters on the big screen. That never happens. So there does exist a realm of "wrong" in making movies. Certain things that are taboo, and over the line. Dakota Fanning can play an abused girl, but having a sex scene depicting her abuse is wrong. For her to get kissed, fondled and dry humped, simulating incest, is terribly wrong...all for the sake of "art".

Pennington's Rocket Arm
01-29-2007, 02:42 PM
i'm pretty sure part of the reason this scene was created was for the controversy. that's kinda lame.

as for something being "taboo" and "wrong," that's one person's opinion, period.

Sethdaddy8
01-29-2007, 02:50 PM
as for something being "taboo" and "wrong," that's one person's opinion, period.


Yes that's true. Pedophiles are entitled to thier opinions too....period.

Pennington's Rocket Arm
01-29-2007, 02:54 PM
Yes that's true. Pedophiles are entitled to thier opinions too....period.
:lol:

k.