lazypadawan | OT: Why I'd Never Let My Kid (if I had one) Act (Reply)

There has been controversy over Dakota Fanning, the 12-year-old actress who looks 9, appearing in a film where she is raped onscreen. I first read about it some months ago on

maidenjedi's LJ; at the time investors had pulled out of the film rightfully knowing it was going to be controversial. Unfortunately, the filmmakers found the cash to finish the flick and it debuted this week at the Sundance Film Festival. I was appalled when I first heard about this movie and I'm still appalled. I've heard the usual arguments about not judging a movie you haven't seen, but I don't have to see "Saw" I-III to find that kind of gore-for-its-own-sake garbage abhorrent. Some things are just flat out wrong.

The filmmakers have claimed that everything on the set was hunky dory and no harm was done to Miss Fanning, though I have a hard time believing any parent can sit there and watch his or her daughter go through a rape scene as though he or she were watching a kids' soccer match. You bet I'd be worried about where she has go to psychologically in order to pull it off when the cameras roll, even if every legal safeguard was taken. And there are other elements to the movie that are disturbing...according to reviews of the film, 12-year-old-looking-9 Dakota dances around seductively, frequently appears in her undies, and has to endure things like snakes crawling over her or her "father" crawling naked into bed with her. Uh, WTF??? The filmmakers have tried to push this as a coming-of-age tale and the story of a young girl's triumph over the horrors of abuse. But when you have a pretty pre-pubescent girl wiggling around seductively in her undies and men coming after her, you're going to have a movie only a creepy "Dateline" internet predator could love. Which to me is the most disturbing aspect of this whole thing. The "hook" for this movie isn't really a powerful story about overcoming abuse; the hook is the most popular child actress since Shirley Temple gets raped and prances around in her undies. Why else would anyone care?

They've also said that young Dakota is an experienced professional and "mature" for a 12-year-old. Living and working in an adult world has made her sound like a grown-up, but that doesn't make her one. Precociousness isn't the same thing as maturity. She still can't drink, buy her own cigarettes, drive a car, vote, or join the Army. She still has to have her parents co-sign all of her contracts. I don't care how long she's spent on a movie set. She still does not have the judgment of a 30-year-old actress who can think through whether or not she can handle doing a rape scene and what a controversial performance could do to her career, her image, and her personal life. That includes handling criticism. Look at all of the crap that got dumped on young Jake Lloyd for TPM. No wonder the kid ran from Hollywood after that. Her parents however, should know better but like too many stage parents, they're only thinking of more fame and glory. It has even been mentioned that both her agent and her parents were excited about this movie because the role was potential Oscar bait and could lead to more good roles. What's the hurry with winning an Oscar at 12 or 13? Not only do they not seem to care about whether the script's age-appropriate, they don't seem to be thinking about Dakota attracting a whole new fanbase they wouldn't want. Even if things are handled on the set one way, onscreen it's played out as real and an actress has to live with whatever she commits to celluloid for the rest of her life. The long-term well-being of a young person ought to outweigh short-term gains.

Those who think this is all swell point to Jodie Foster's turn as a prostitute at age 13 in "Taxi Driver," Brooke Shields in "Pretty Baby" at age 12, and Jena Malone in "Bastard Out of Carolina" at age 11. "Well, they all did controversial stuff but they all turned out okay," goes the argument. Well, just because none of those actresses ended up in rehab or robbed a bank doesn't make those roles at the very least troubling if not troublesome for the gals who performed them. Jodie Foster had to live with the shadow of John Hinckley. Brooke Shields was desperate to ditch her sex kitten image by the time she was in her late teens and no longer speaks to the mother who disgustingly exploited her as a child. Malone is still young, but she was emancipated from her mother in her teens in a dispute over money. And just because they don't publicize their issues doesn't mean they don't have them.

In any case, there's no work of art that's so important it's worth exploiting a kid. Child actors shouldn't have to choose between "Mom, can I have a cookie" parts and playing pre-teen sex slaves, and unfortunately, the adults seldom have the kids' best interest in mind.