Is this an indie or just a high quality studio funded pic???

[deleted]

First of all, I have not gone off-topic at all. We are talking about the value of making films which may harm certain people who do not want to relive those memories. So everything I said was exactly on-topic.

Nothing you said changes the fact that there is almost unanimous agreement that at least some of these films are worthwhile making and people are helped by them. In fact, I think you just said that yourself.

So now you're changing your tune, and admitting that some of these films are worthy of being made and some are not. But now we are into dangerous territory, because now the subject is censorship. Who is to decide where the line is crossed? Isn't that line different for some than for others? Are we to have a committee to watch these films and make a decision as to whether or not they are more exploitative than not? Actually, we already do. It's called the MPAA -- like it or not.

And THAT, sir, IS a different topic. Because we can debate censorship ad nauseum. The fact is, we live in a culture and a society where art is generally not censored. Other than pornography laws (which are hard to enforce anyway) we do NOT draw lines like that. We do not tell filmmakers what films they can make and we do not tell people what films they can see, outside of the laws I mentioned and the MPAA ratings (which are hotly debated themselves).

So if I now read you correctly, you aren't opposed to the making of this film per se. You're opposed to films which exploit these topics in the guise of what is essentially kiddie porn. And on that, of course, we agree. The problem, though, is who makes that decision. You and I can express our opinions about it, but it won't change anything.

One correction, though. There was no body double in Speak. I watched the DVD with the commentary, and the scene was discussed. I also know a couple of the people in the film fairly well. The way that scene was shot is discussed in great detail. No body double was used.

At any rate, I agree with you. But I don't think it's fair, nor do I think anyone can, pass judgment on whether or not a film does cross that line until it is seen.



----------------
A unique sandwich is like a rite of passage. One day you may have one to claim for your own.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

[deleted]

RE: "Speak," from IMDb:

"The rape scene was originally supposed to take place in the woods. However, shortly before filming, Kristen Stewart discovered she had an allergy to the grass that caused her to rash, so the scene was moved to a car. When she's walking home from the party, there are leaves on her back because that scene was filmed before she learned of the allergy."

http://imdb.com/title/tt0378793/trivia

Obviously, she did the scene or that whole issue would be moot. It is also explained on the DVD commentary.


----------------------------
A unique sandwich is like a rite of passage. One day you may have one to claim for your own.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

[deleted]

On the commentary, they discussed the rape scene in detail because of both the allergy problem mentioned in IMDb as well as how difficult it was for her to do it at all. I'm sure if she hadn't done the whole rape scene they would have mentioned it. In fact, she said that it was her most difficult scene to do, but she felt it was necessary to show how horrible such an act is. Maybe the article said that she "could have" used a body double but chose not to. That would make sense.


-----------------------
A unique sandwich is like a rite of passage. One day you may have one to claim for your own.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

[deleted]

I guess I can sum up my feelings this way. Let's say I had an experience as a child. Like many, I will write about it. Writing is a way of moving on, accepting, exorcising demons, coming to terms with what happened, etc. It can be a way of venting anger and frustration. Now say that I become a filmmaker and decide to put my story on film. So I make my movie. I may simply be making it because I want to tell my story. I may or may not be trying to effect a difference in the world. But let's say that others who have had similar experiences may also be able to move on, accept, exorcize demons, come to terms with what happened, etc., and may even be able to track down and find and punish those who did this to them, or may be able to identify them or remember them after having supressed the memories, who would dare say that I don't, as a writer or filmmaker, have the right to do that? Again, nobody is forced to see my film. But many who do choose to see it are moved by it and some, for the first time in their lives, are able to deal with what happened to them in a positive way.

There is NO doubt whatsoever that criminals and abusers have been punished because of individuals coming forward after having seen films such as this. No doubt.

It is absolutely impossible to tell a story or create a work of art without someone being offended. But many more will likely benefit from it than not. What right does anyone have to say that no books shall be written? No films shall be made? Who would dare tell me that I, as someone who has had a traumatic experience, do not have the right to tell my story? And maybe tell it in the hope that it will help others?

I cannot imagine that in a society such as ours that people who have been abused and want to tell their stories should be silenced.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

[deleted]

At what point do you draw the line?

That's it right there. That, in essence, is the double edged sword of living in a free society. Where do you draw the line? And who draws it? That is what it all comes down to. One man's horror is another man's pleasure. I think that's just the risk we take when we choose free speech over the alternative. Yes, we have the executive, legislative, and judiciary, but ultimately the lines are blurred. Especially when it comes to the creative realm (art, films, books, music) the line is always moving. But that's the deal we bought into.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

[deleted]

[deleted]

Nice misdirect. Notwithstanding the fact that it's not your business who I'm friends with or why --

Someone I know made a film in which he tells the story of his life, including being abused when he was young. He is played by Angarano. Hmm...maybe that explains it? Or is it something sinister?

I also posted pics of Yoko Ono...hmm...what is this thing I have about old Asian women? And what about Paul Verhoeven? Hmm...an old Dutch guy. And Brittany Murphy, and Ralph Fiennes, and Illeana Douglas, and Amanda Seyfried, and Nick Cassavetes...hmm...sinister, yes!

reply share

add reply

formatting help

I never said a right to do "anything they want." Go back and read my post.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

[deleted]

I thought I did here:

That's it right there. That, in essence, is the double edged sword of living in a free society. Where do you draw the line? And who draws it? That is what it all comes down to. One man's horror is another man's pleasure. I think that's just the risk we take when we choose free speech over the alternative. Yes, we have the executive, legislative, and judiciary, but ultimately the lines are blurred. Especially when it comes to the creative realm (art, films, books, music) the line is always moving. But that's the deal we bought into.

Obviously, if I thought "anything goes," I wouldn't have made that statement in the first place because it would have been moot. I would simply have said that there is no line. But I specifically said that there IS a line. By definition, that means I'm agreeing with you. I am saying the same thing. I am saying that there is a line that must be drawn between what is exploitative for the sake of "art" and what is not.

We are both saying the same thing, bigglebop. Of course I feel VERY strongly that if the telling of a story of exploitation uses exploitation to tell the point that something smells rotten there. I do not in any way, shape, or form condone the use of child actors in an exploitative fashion. Ever. That would be equally as sick and perverted as the act(s) which supposedly prompted the film to be made in the first place.

That is my stand on that. Now, to the question of the possibility of those films being made "which are not written and directed by people who were abused as children," well, that is a dangerous area to get into. How do we know? Do we administer a test? Are we saying that only people who were abused themselves have the right to tell their stories? And if so, if we are forcing them to say whether or not they were, isn't that an invasion of privacy? Isn't that a form of abuse in itself? If someone wants to admit that, it's their choice. But nobody should be forced to admit such a thing. Maybe they are still in denial and aren't even aware of it. Maybe they blocked it out. Maybe they have a compulsion to make a film about it but don't even know why. It's happened before. So that's the grey area I was talking about.

The other point, about it not being true, is also a grey area. Again, how do we know? How can we sanction films made by people who suffered from abuse based on whether or not we believe that person and not sanction films made by people who we don't believe really did? Isn't that like a witch hunt?

That's what I meant about the grey area. Because, as I said, where do we draw the line and who draws it? That's the dilemma here.

So we are in agreement, as I've been trying to say. Certainly, if it walks like a duck...etc. Most of us know exploitation when we see it. But there are instances where people disagree. And THAT was my point before. Some people think certain works of art are "trash." Others call it "genius." That's how it works in a free society.

So, again, I am agreeing with you. I'm just wondering who is going to make that decision that one is okay and another is not.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

[deleted]

Again, I think we are in agreement here. I stated where I would draw the lines in my previous post. Very forcefully, in fact. And again, perhaps the reason I have been so outspoken is because of the timing here. As I said, someone I know made a feature film abou a year ago about his own experiences which involved abuse. One reason he did so, which he has said publicly, is because he wanted to show the world what a bastard sicko his father was, and that he belongs in jail. He hoped that by telling his story, others may come forward and expose those who may have abused them. I followed the progress of the film, attended the world premiere, and have been reporting news on it all year. So the subject has been at the top of my mind. Then this film comes along with somewhat similar themes, and I naturally felt that it was more of a good thing -- exposing abusers and showing society that victims of abuse will not lay down and stay silent. I think it's empowering. It just seemed to me that this could only be a good thing.

The kinds of abuses and exploitation used to further the cause of the making of a film, which we've been discussing here, isn't something I've ever really heard of or been aware of. If it is happening it is deplorable and maybe even illegal.

Again, in no way, shape, or form do I condone anything like that. I don't know how to express it any more strongly.

---------------
EDIT: Here is an excerpt from the Q&A after the screening of that film:

Q: Have your parents seen it or have they heard of it?

Eric: My mother passed away five years ago. You know, ever since I put all those posters in my father’s neighborhood with his picture saying “pedophile,” things have not been the same between us. I think the fact that it included his address and phone number and email address and contacting all his former employers and all the churches where he’s headed the church children’s choir – you know, I don’t see him on holidays the way I used to and he doesn’t call me on my birthdays so I don’t think he’s seen it. I don’t think I sent him an invitation but I will send him a DVD I think.

Q: Do you know if he has heard of it?

Eric: Oh yeah. Yeah, he’s aware of it.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

[deleted]

[deleted]

jjmm: Yes, I was specifically thinking of "The Bondage," in particular, but also some other films I've seen in the past. Actually, "Mysterious Skin" may have crossed that line, in my opinion. Some of the images disturbed me, even though I know that it was "movie magic."

bb: The thing is, I'm not really aware of any. Certainly if one was pointed out to me, I'd take a look at the plans.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

[deleted]

The only one I can think of is an old TV movie called "I Know My First Name is Steven." They used a little kid in it and I remember being very disturbed about it at the time.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

[deleted]

I never heard of that one. It's not listed on IMDb.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

[deleted]

Oh, getting my post deleted, very brave. Watch out you don't make too many futile abuse reports. All I said was how much you go on about Michael Angarano, and mentioned the last actor you'd posted pictures of - very interesting.

I preferred your first reply to that before you edited it - this one reminds me of when the man in Hard Candy tells the girl that he's done environmental photography, too!

reply share

add reply

formatting help

Get a life. The admins don't delete posts for no reason.

And how brave of you to simply thumb your nose at the admins by essentially repeating what you said in the post that was deleted.

Shame on you.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

[deleted]