All posts with more than 3000 Hits, prior to 2008

Fri Jan 05, 2007 2:17 am

shanebrown wrote:off-screen does not necessarily mean that we will hear it happening! It probably means that we will find out about it afterwards. Or perhaps see the girl go off with the guy and then fade to when the girl is found afterwards etc. I think you use the term off-screen a little too literally! But the answer again here is that we dont know what off-screen means and there is little point in surmising.

I don't intend to go through the long list of films from the 40s to 60s that actually include rape within their storylines. I suggest you go on the imdb and find them out for yourself. But you could start with "M" by Fritz Lang starring Peter Lorre which is about a serial child molester and killer from 1931. And not one sex scene in it.

You're proving my point........

There is also the onscreen murder of a child in Sabotage by Hitchcock from 1936, which is still daring even by todays standards.

Though not as daring as raping a child, no??


Madonna Of The Seven Moons (1945) has child rape as part of its storyline.

Really.........let's compare the two films in question. I wonder which will be graphic, and which one managed to tell the story without the gratuitous elements. Done proving my point yet??

As for rape (or attempted rape) you could try Blackmail (1929), Outrage (1950), To Kill A Mockingbird (1962), Town Without Pity (1961 - gang rape), The Wind (1928).

Ive seen most of those...........how many kids were raped? A round figure will do. I have a nice round one..........0.

Also, I never mentioned anything about the film being a work of art. I was talking of it possibly being intelligent, but that is not the same thing. It might be a work of art, but I never said that it would be.

No, "art" is used a cloak behind which criticism can be hidden from. Then the pompous decry the barbarity and the unsophistication of critics from behind that tattered cloak. Most are actually as interested in art as Larry Flynt.

As for the link with Elvis, I have no interest in that point to be honest - I don't care whether the musical soundtrack is by Beethoven or Bob Dylan. As you may have noticed by many previous posts of the last week or so, I do not view Elvis as a God. I don't worship him, I never have. If his music fits as much as any other (or more than any other) then I see no reason not to use it. Again, we do not know in what way the music will be used. If the girl uses the music as a way to get through her ordeal then I see no reason why anyone should complain. According to Allmovie guide on the web, this is exactly what happens:

"A precocious but troubled young girl living in 1950s-era Alabama seeks solace in the music of Elvis Presley in director Deborah Kampmeier's controversial tale of childhood trauma and musical healing."

another online report states:

"it's a story about human understanding, about a little girl who's dealt a very bad deck of cards, but finds solace in the music of Elvis and survives."

Well, that is the issue that was put forward. Would Elvis approve, and how will it affect his image.

As a film student, I find it difficult to reconcile your artistic sensibilities with your utter disregard for the sensibilities of OTHER artists, and whether those sensibilities should be considered when utilizing their art.

You don't have to consider Elvis God to consider such things, do you??


Finally, you still talk constantly about the "rape scene". I will remind you once more that a scene is something that we see. We are not going to see it. not...going...to...see...it. The prelude to rape is not "certainly" going to be shown. The problem here is that you...don't...know. No-one has seen it yet. There are very strict rules in the States as to what can be shown on film by someone under 18. Emile Hirsch in the comedy "The Girl Next Door" had to have a "stunt backside" as he couldn't show his own as he was 17 when the film was made, for example. You can be assured that the whole thing will be monitored very carefully.[/i]


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 Fanning's agent and her mother.[3] The production coordinator estimates the rape scene will only take up about a minute of the entire feature-length film. She says it was shot above the shoulders, using Fanning's facial expressions to tell the story.[3]

Precisely what is the bodysuit for?? Gymnastics practice?? Aerobics??Her off-camera work??

We-DO-KNOW what is going to be seen NOW, don't we?? Her BODY, her FACE........ON CAMERA.

Fri Jan 05, 2007 2:26 am

Cryogenic wrote:
sid wrote:OK I went back and read the original article. Can you now tell me there is ANYTHING RIGHT with this film after reading that blurb?


Try adjusting your brain.

Cyanide comes highly recommended.




Thought you were going?


Why did you write that pray tell.

If you can think of nothing else other than to insult me I pity you........here's me thinking you were an educated Guy too!

Shall I tell you why I dont need to adjust my brain? because I read that article and thought there are some dickheads out there that are going to love this film.............they are playing right into the hands of any perverts and scum who prey on children I just hope NOTHING happens to some poor innocent child because of this film.

Hopefully people will come to there senses and boycott it before it even reaches our shores, or EPE or the songwriters give it the wide berth it deserves.

Another thing speaking as someone who has worked with abused children , a little while ago something very similar to the storylines of this film actually happened and I can tell you now the repercussions were NOT pleasant at all.


And please dont insult me or my intelligence again...........my posts on this board may not be rivetting or as full of Elvis information as you like, but I am a newcomer to Forums......less than a year in fact..........but am here to learn.

Fri Jan 05, 2007 2:40 am

shanebrown wrote:Cryogenic, are we the ones that are mad here? I just want to check here!


Don't ask me. I could be mad.

sid wrote:Hopefully people will come to there senses and boycott it before it even reaches our shores, or EPE or the songwriters give it the wide berth it deserves.


sid wrote:And please dont insult me or my intelligence again...........my posts on this board may not be rivetting or as full of Elvis information as you like, but I am a newcomer to Forums......less than a year in fact..........but am here to learn.


Here to learn -- or here to preach?

You're doing a very good job of the latter, unambiguously proving your ignorance in the process.

Nighty night!

Fri Jan 05, 2007 3:02 am

shanebrown wrote:Sid, so you dont think that these kids with a similar storyline to the film could have benefitted from the public being better educated as to what they went through and what they are probably still going through?



Shane


Some people can't be educated against these sort of thing, it's just in them, born with it shall we say.

We can give as many lessons as we like about the danger's of Rape, Molesting, Sexual Abuse whatever else you want call it, but it's been proven hasn't it that it doesnt work, take some of our cases in England for instance, I wont name names in Memory of those beautiful children, but we only have to pick up some of our newspapers to find out that someone who had been locked up for being a pervert, has got out of jail and did it again, that is what I mean by it's born in them........they can't be helped.....they just go along with the system........and shall I tell you something else that will make your blood run cold.......half of these people are allowed back near or with the child/children involved or in the worst cases amongst the parents who have ''lost'' their child because of something the scum had done........and their child was so badly damaged they couldn't go on living in a family unit anymore.

I dont know about you Shane, but I have two sons one is 24 the other is 18 this month and I have been blessed that they have turned out to be fine decent young men, who through me and their Dad know they have to respect women, on the other hand , what is this film going to educate people about?. If there was going to be any sort of message in it surely it should have been about ''prevention'' of abuse rather than going along with glorifying it, which in effect is what it is doing. How can the portrayal of a 12 year old rape victim have any lessons in it whatsoever, wether its shown or not.

Take a step back a minute and view this film from a different set of eyes so to speak, then come back and we will discuss it more, and I dont mean that in an offensive way whatsoever.

Fri Jan 05, 2007 3:04 am

Cryogenic wrote:
shanebrown wrote:Cryogenic, are we the ones that are mad here? I just want to check here!


Don't ask me. I could be mad.

sid wrote:Hopefully people will come to there senses and boycott it before it even reaches our shores, or EPE or the songwriters give it the wide berth it deserves.


sid wrote:And please dont insult me or my intelligence again...........my posts on this board may not be rivetting or as full of Elvis information as you like, but I am a newcomer to Forums......less than a year in fact..........but am here to learn.


Here to learn -- or here to preach?

You're doing a very good job of the latter, unambiguously proving your ignorance in the process.

Nighty night!



Cyrogenic

Grow up

Fri Jan 05, 2007 3:14 am

It's obvious that judgements are being made purely from an emotional reaction to the subject matter rather than actual facts.None of us have seen it so how can we praise or condem it?Does anybody here actually believe that the rape scene was filmed in a way to titilate audiences?Of course not.Does a deeply disturbing subject make it off limits?I would wait and see the final product and then pass judgement before jumping to conclusions based on hysteria.To me there is a big difference between a strictly gratuitous film and one that is meant provoke thought or discussion with it's content.
Jak

Fri Jan 05, 2007 3:34 am

Most controversial topic of FECC EVER??? A pretty big contender at the least

Oh, and just as a side note, Elvis was involved indirectly with a to be rape scene in Change of habit. But that could've been victim, played by Mary Tyler Moore, was a adult actress, so i guess that could be aside from the discussion, or maybe not...

Fri Jan 05, 2007 3:41 am

But Jak does it matter if it was filmed or not ,

This is what I base my anger towards the film on .........

Maybe the most controversial film heading to this month's Sundance Film
Festival concerns the rape of a 12-year-old girl


You see....we already know by this piece that it happens, and wether it is seen or not.

Why use a 12 year old........why use rape?

Fri Jan 05, 2007 3:48 am

Cryogenic wrote:The pathetic moralising from people in here is, in a word ......... SHOCKING.

But not at all surprising.

If you don't like it, don't watch it. Simple.

To denigrate and accuse people who don't blindly hate this endeavour is Salem-esque hysteria at its finest.

Live and let live? More Christian BS. Ah....... what a lovely belief system.

And this is particularly interesting:

Scatter wrote:Errrrrrrr.........no,the case doesn't change a bit. The prelude to the rape will certainly be portrayed. If the rape itself is not shown to the point of penetration, does that make it OK with you people??

"Ah well, her knickers were hardly off at all.Just a bit of tearing at clothes ON THE 12 YEAR OLD.

Nothing at all really.

All the moaning and screaming was done while actual penetration was off-camera. Then the shot as the poor, socially unfortunate bloke pulled back and upped his trousers. Nothing at all..........."


For someone who supposedly hates this entire idea to the very core of his being ............ you do have a way with words.


Listen to yourself (it's not fair we have to be subjected to your drivel alone). King of hyperbole. OHHHHHHHH the witch trials. Typical garbage.

Let us know when you're leaving. I wouldn't want to blink and miss the mourning period

Fri Jan 05, 2007 3:48 am

Scott Haigh 781990EP wrote:Most controversial topic of FECC EVER??? A pretty big contender at the least

Oh, and just as a side note, Elvis was involved indirectly with a to be rape scene in Change of habit. But that could've been victim, played by Mary Tyler Moore, was a adult actress, so i guess that could be aside from the discussion, or maybe not...


And according to Priscilla, well...

Fri Jan 05, 2007 3:54 am

shanebrown wrote:Ok. So, the article tells us within a few lines that the Fanning is "raped onscreen" and that the director "doesn't show the rape". Interesting. And you are making judgements on an article that doesn't actually know what its talking about. I still stand my ground.


Again........you need to learn to read. What is the bodysuit for?? Off screen?? YOU JUST ASSURED US we wouldn't see ANYTHING, didn't you?? Didn't you??

Now, we see she has need of a bodysuit. Why?? You just told us she wouldn't be seen. Her face is shown during the rape.Nice. But you just told us she wouldn't be seen.

Yet, you stand behind statements assuring us she wouldn't be seen. I've got some advice for you...........drop film school. You have a brilliant future in politics. Or as a weatherman.

Fri Jan 05, 2007 3:58 am

shanebrown wrote:Since the issue of Elvis would think does seem to concern you, it seems to me that Elvis for most of his career was yearning to do serious, even arty, movies. In the ones that he did feature in there were murders, blackmailing, heroin addiction and the attempted rape of a nun. I never met Elvis, I never asked him what he thought of using his music in a film such as this. Obviously you can read his mind though. Perhaps you have some contact with him via Jonathan Edwards or some other medium?

I ask you questions now.

1.) Why is child murder not as daring as child rape? Why do we accept one more than the other?

2.) Madonna of the Seven Moons was made 61 years ago. Which film will be more honest in its portrayal of what the victim had to go through following the rape? Which film would have covered up the nastiness so that the poor public didn't have to be bothered by the aftermath that followed for years after? And, therefore, which fill will be ultimately more responsible?

3.) Not a question here. But you are reading with your discussion of "art" something that I didn't refer to. If you wish to read that into the situation that is your perogative.

4.) You say at one point that the scene was shot above the shoulders. You then say that we are going to see her body...her face? Is her body between her neck and face then? Strange looking girl, I reckon! Or do you not read your own posts?

5.) Perhaps you would like to respond to my last two posts?


Errrrrrrr..........Einstein. The quote was from the PRODUCTION MANAGER. Not me. I suppose the bodysuit is to cover her face then according to you, right?? A bodysuit covers the BODY. The PM said that the face was shown DURING THE RAPE. Or possibly some OTHER revealing scene with a CHILD

Fri Jan 05, 2007 4:01 am

shanebrown wrote:I wrote five minutes ago why the body suit would be needed. Please go back and read it as I am very tired or repeating myself so that you understand.


Yeah, to cover her face, or for some other scene where one would require revaling the body of a child. Sweeeeet.

Besides, you assured us she wouldn't be seen at all during the rape. Now it's head and shoulders. Maybe more.

Fri Jan 05, 2007 4:04 am

shanebrown wrote:Sid, I still see no evidence that this film is glorifying it. I have said elsewhere in this thread that part of the film might be concerned with trying to stop offendors being let back into the community, or from preventing it by showing the dangers of the internet etc to parents. Or simply to encourage other girls/women who have been abused or rape to come forward and for them to see that they are not alone.. I see none of these things as glorifying the events and all of them as being legitimate messages in a movie such as this. I may be completely wrong in the angle of the film, but from the various articles on it on www, i understand from what i have read that there is some form of message behind it. I still think we should just wait and see what it is.

I, like you, in no way think that people can be educated not to rape. They either do or they don't. In the same way, I also don't believe that watching tom and jerry encourages children to be violent.

I don't have kids - and am not likely to have them, being gay - but I do know that homophobic incidents went down by 33% between 1998 and 2005 when a series of gay TV presenters and dramas hit UK TV screens, making "gay people" more acceptable in our society, perhaps? Either way, and whether the stats are coincidences or not, the power of TV and film is high. Would Jamie Oliver have got a petition of a quarter of a million people to change school meals without TV for example?

Film and TV are both powerful and, if any of the messages mentioned earlier in this post, are dealt with in the film then some good may be done.



Shane, I hope in all hopes that some good will come out of this film, and if it does then I shall eat my hat so to speak, but I know it wont. You are right about films and tv being powerful, look how many crimes have been commited because of it, and dare I say this but how long will it be before something of this nature is posted on Youtube? Yes many good things have been brought about by tv but I tend to think the bad far outweighs the good.

I would like to think that it was tv that made being gay acceptable, but I would also like to think it was Parents educating their children properly, I cant say Schools because in my experience it's neither talked about or taught.

I am not saying anyone is wrong or bad or anything for sticking up for this film, but I do hope this is not the way forward in the Art world.

Fri Jan 05, 2007 4:11 am

carolynlm wrote:Yes, Jak you are right, we are all getting emotional about this.....it's an emotional subject.....I want all our children protected, and I can't help but think that making movies about these things is doing that.


It's absolutely an emotional subject.Im not a parent but I can only imagine that it would be even more distrubing to you.The act of harming an innocent child should be despicable to any rational person.However I wouldnt take that one scene from the movie as a reason to boycott it.These situations are a disgusting reality.Could the movie spark some meaningfull dialouge or galvanize some people?I dont know.It's true that we have all become jaded and somewhat numb to these horrific things that happen everyday.Could the movie instigate some additional awareness?Once again I dont have the answer.I would hope that Dakota's family and management accepted this role because they did see some merit in it.
Jak

Fri Jan 05, 2007 4:20 am

Folks -
Everybody needs to calm down. It's obvious to me that emotions are running wild here on both the pro and con side of the debate. Some are resorting to personal attacks.

I've been aware of this film for a month or so. My understanding is that it's going to be a topical piece, tackling what is the most grave matter that plagues our society. From what I undersand the music of Elvis helps Dakota's character cope with her abuse, so in that sense Elvis' music is being used in a positive manner. I can certainly understand those who object to the depiction of a 13 year old being raped, but it appears that this won't be the case.

I won't see this film. I just can't watch things of this nature. Several years ago there was a controversial film entitled "Bastard Out of Carolina" that dealt with the abuse/molestation of a pre-teen girl. I never watched that when it originally aired, but one day I was channel surfing and it was on, so I started to watch it. Unfortunately, in a few minutes the abuse scene came on and, while not graphic, it was apparent what was taking place. I couldn't finish the movie, I was too angry and sickened. Even though it was just a movie the sad fact that this evil does occur in reality got my blood boiling. And whenever I see the actor who played the abuser (Ron Eldard) I think of that movie. I know he was an actor playing a role, but the identification is there nonetheless.

So on the one hand I understand that the Dakota Fanning film is intended to be a "message" film, I get that. But on the other hand I can certainly understand and identify with Scatter's and Carolyn's and Sid's aversion to the film's subject matter. They shouldn't be put down because of their viewpoints.

Fri Jan 05, 2007 4:35 am

Thanks Pete, I am stepping away from this debate, it is too emotional and draining for me to think straight anymore.

If you look my signature is Taking Care of Elvis.............in August we will be marking his 30th year of passing, I dont want him associated with this film, we are shouting for EPE to give us something decent to mark it with and what will we get???? this awful film that's my final word :?

Fri Jan 05, 2007 4:38 am

I'm out as well.

Fri Jan 05, 2007 4:44 am

Pete Dube wrote: Several years ago there was a controversial film entitled "Bastard Out of Carolina"...


...and I think we all know who that is! :lol:

JEFF d
EAP fan

Fri Jan 05, 2007 4:51 am

JEFF d wrote:
Pete Dube wrote: Several years ago there was a controversial film entitled "Bastard Out of Carolina"...


...and I think we all know who that is! :lol:

JEFF d
EAP fan


:lol:

Fri Jan 05, 2007 8:40 am

chill out gang.
just a movie good grief like i said before. may not be as bad as yall think now.