maycocksean
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
I'd be interested to hear from someone with some extensive experience in the film industry comment on how traumatizing this experience might have been to Dakota Fanning. I've directed scenes on my own (currently shelved) television drama, but the "difficult" scenes were no where this intense so I don't think I'm really qualified to say.
I'd agree that editing can create a different feeling then what was there originally, and it's been often said that sex scenes, for example, are singularly "unsexy" when they're being filmed.
My concerns have to do with two things:
Number one, the "nude but for the underpants." I just have a problem with showing underage girls nude. If it wasn't for the dressing of art, we'd call it pornography. I agree with the all the comments about "telling the story" and it's merit in that regard, but there will surely be viewers with far more prurient interests, and I just don't think a young kid should be exposed to that.
Number two, while editing will make the scene look "worse", the fact is that for Dakota to be convicingly real, she's going to have to go some really dark places as an actor to bring an authentic performance. And I'm just wondering if it's really good to be asking that much of such a young girl. I've worked with young actors for the past seven years, both on stage and in television and from my experience, just the mental and emotional cost of giving a convincing performance might be quite high.
I don't oppose the depiction of sexuality or violence in film, per se (which I don't think contradicts my Christian values, since there's a lot in the Bible that I don't think is "appropriate for kids" yet still has value) but I think there are some legitmate concerns.
And then again, the scenes are already shot, so I'm not sure what good our hand-wringng would do at this point.
I'd agree that editing can create a different feeling then what was there originally, and it's been often said that sex scenes, for example, are singularly "unsexy" when they're being filmed.
My concerns have to do with two things:
Number one, the "nude but for the underpants." I just have a problem with showing underage girls nude. If it wasn't for the dressing of art, we'd call it pornography. I agree with the all the comments about "telling the story" and it's merit in that regard, but there will surely be viewers with far more prurient interests, and I just don't think a young kid should be exposed to that.
Number two, while editing will make the scene look "worse", the fact is that for Dakota to be convicingly real, she's going to have to go some really dark places as an actor to bring an authentic performance. And I'm just wondering if it's really good to be asking that much of such a young girl. I've worked with young actors for the past seven years, both on stage and in television and from my experience, just the mental and emotional cost of giving a convincing performance might be quite high.
I don't oppose the depiction of sexuality or violence in film, per se (which I don't think contradicts my Christian values, since there's a lot in the Bible that I don't think is "appropriate for kids" yet still has value) but I think there are some legitmate concerns.
And then again, the scenes are already shot, so I'm not sure what good our hand-wringng would do at this point.