Now this still kind of amuses me because A) Dan Radcliffe is not Harry Potter (seeing as Harry Potter is a fictional character!), and B) Dan's assets are probably not the point of the play. Reading summaries though, I'm not exactly clear on the point of the play at all. It sounds like a fashionably dark story that confuses depth with extent of pathology. But whatever.... Dan Radcliffe is seventeen--which I believe is legal age in the UK-- and can choose his projects. (And can I just say, seeing the promotional shots for Equus, the boy has grown up quite nicely.) People can choose to see it or not...and as far as children, why would you take your child to a play (in London) that involves nudity and violence? ETA: According to an article in This Is London, "The play's underlying questions concern the nature of ecstasy and passion in a soulless, consumer-dominated world." So...basically what I said before.
Now, another current controversy (which is unrelated project-wise, but somewhat related topically) is about Dakota Fanning (the cute little blonde girl with big blue eyes who has been in a zillion movies including I Am Sam, War of the Worlds, Charlotte's Web, etc.) and her new movie, Hounddog. The movie is about a young girl who is sexually abused but finds comfort in Elvis Presley's music. Filming has required that Dakota Fanning, 12, "appear naked" during an explicit rape scene. (Apparently, she wasn't completely naked on set, wearing some sort of body suit.) The movie is having trouble finding investors and distributors, and the county where the movie was filmed has launched an abuse investigation. I doubt the investigation will go very far, but I think the concern is valid. At what point does "acting like you're a kid being sexually abused" stop being acting? I can't imagine that such a role could not impact a 12 year old's sense of self, sexuality, etc. At that age, kids (hopefully) do not have any sexual experience so how would a child integrate the experience of a role like that?
Some have compared Dakota's scenes in Hounddog to scenes by young(ish) actresses in other movies about abuse or similar topics. One in particular was Jenna Malone's role in Bastard Out of Carolina. I saw that movie (and granted, it was a long time ago) but from what I remember, the abuse scenes were not graphic and would not have required Jenna to be at all undressed. Still, the movie was not picked up by any distributors and ended up being released straight to tv. That is no surprise since the book is banned on a regular basis.
Anyway, some feel that the movie Hounddog will bring attention to the issue of child sexual abuse and are upset by the controversy. For example, one journalist writes, "The main thing to remember is that Dakota Fanning accepted the part knowingly after having fully read the script. She was ready to tackle this problem. Why isn't the public?" (here). See, the thing about that? She's 12. That is below the age of consent just about anywhere in the Western world. She cannot make an informed choice because she is not developmentally ready to do so. That's why her parents should have said "no," and since they seem to be too wrapped up in their daughter's career, why social services is now investigating. (Go social workers!)
From what I can tell, there are no laws or restrictions about child actors in simulated sexual situations...which is kind of disturbing. Maybe some of this uproar will bring about some changes.
At any rate, it's a big jump from Charlotte's Web to explicit rape.
2 comments:
sorry, i used explicit language in the last one.
maybe they used the word assent instead of consent. regardless an IRB should be smacking them down! and yay again for the social workers!i hope someone gets suied!
Post a Comment