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]
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.
Fri Jan 05, 2007 2:40 am
shanebrown wrote:Cryogenic, are we the ones that are mad here? I just want to check here!
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.
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?
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.
Fri Jan 05, 2007 3:14 am
Fri Jan 05, 2007 3:34 am
Fri Jan 05, 2007 3:41 am
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.
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...
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Fri Jan 05, 2007 4:20 am
Fri Jan 05, 2007 4:35 am
Fri Jan 05, 2007 4:38 am
Fri Jan 05, 2007 4:44 am
Pete Dube wrote: Several years ago there was a controversial film entitled "Bastard Out of Carolina"...
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!
Fri Jan 05, 2007 8:40 am
Hosted by ElviCities