Dakota Fanning's new movie.

[Texsox]

Go stop the pedophiles in your church before you talk about a big work of total fiction.

 

So teachers can't talk about abuse. Doctors can't talk about abuse. Police and politicans can't talk about abuse. So kids have no advocates in your world. How sad.

 

Nice of you to stick up for pedophiles by stopping those who talk against them. We wouldn't want anyone to mention how abuse of children is wrong. That would be a terrible idea.

 

The good people in every organization need to stand up for what is right. If the good people in the Church, those that didn't abuse children or cover it up can't f***ing talk about it being wrong, how f***ed up is the situation? Since some pervert abused a kid in 1952 I can't speak out against child abuse. f*** you all.

 

By telling the Catholic Church not to take a stand against Child Abuse, you make it a little nicer for pedophiles, how nice and charitable. Who does it hurt when the Church takes this stand and speaks out? I can't believe people here are sick enough to side with pedophiles and against anyone who speaks out against them. We have to protect pedophiles from the Catholic Church.

[BobDylan]

When something of this nature becomes "entertainment" we start to accept it. To say it's ok because it's "art" or because someone is making money off it, is wrong.

 

Some will try and justify anything in the name of "art". We can go all the way back and discuss feeding people to lions as "art". It is bad when we become more and more desensitized to something as perverse as the exploitation of children.

 

Tex, if I recall correctly, we've had arguments about art before. You've said you don't understand the arts. So how can you possibly justify "to say it's art is wrong"? I agree that if the only interest is money, it's wrong. But with a lot of art, you have to test the limits. You have to go out on a limb and you have to accept people's reactions. Art is a debate, it's a grey area. It's not mathematics where there are proven answers. This subject may be "new" to art, but it's certainly not the only time somebody has pushed the limitations further than people were ready for. The Graduate showed nipples. Truman Capote back stabbed a murderer in the name of his book In Cold Blood. Hell, there's even a movie out at the same Sundance Festival called Zoo about beastiality. Art is about taking risks. It's not about making sure nobody is offended in the process or with the final project. If there were no risks involved, it'd never progress.

Edited January 25, 2007 by BobDylan

[Gregory Pratt]

So teachers can't talk about abuse. Doctors can't talk about abuse. Police and politicans can't talk about abuse. So kids have no advocates in your world. How sad.

 

Thanks for mischaracterizing my comments completely and absolutely. Let's re-read:

 

Go stop the pedophiles in your church before you talk about a big work of total fiction.

 

I sure did mention teachers, and doctors, policemen and politicians, and I sure did forbid them from commenting on the matter.

 

(Green green, above.)

 

Nice of you to stick up for pedophiles by stopping those who talk against them. We wouldn't want anyone to mention how abuse of children is wrong. That would be a terrible idea.

 

Yeah, that's exactly what I'm doing. Let's go to you now, and we'll come right back to me:

 

By telling the Catholic Church not to take a stand against Child Abuse, you make it a little nicer for pedophiles, how nice and charitable. Who does it hurt when the Church takes this stand and speaks out? I can't believe people here are sick enough to side with pedophiles and against anyone who speaks out against them. We have to protect pedophiles from the Catholic Church.

 

First off, I never said they shouldn't take a stand. I was pointing out the hypocrisy inherent in the Church' criticism of this film. By all means, if they want to speak out, the Church should, but I'd prefer to see real moves within their organization to stop their priests from touching altar boys before they take the moral highground they don't have against a film that they likely haven't seen and wouldn't understand if they did. Which is a reference to the often-times archaeic nature of the Church.

 

What if I said I think you're standing up for pedophiles? I mean, simply making that allegation without textual support makes it true, right?

 

Really now. I've had issues with interpretations, and other people's comments to me, plenty of times on this board, but I've never been accused of supporting pedophilia and "making it easy" on pedophiles. Makes me glad we had this discussion.

[Texsox]

Thanks for mischaracterizing my comments completely and absolutely. Let's re-read:

 

 

 

I sure did mention teachers, and doctors, policemen and politicians, and I sure did forbid them from commenting on the matter.

 

(Green green, above.)

 

 

 

Yeah, that's exactly what I'm doing. Let's go to you now, and we'll come right back to me:

 

 

 

First off, I never said they shouldn't take a stand. I was pointing out the hypocrisy inherent in the Church' criticism of this film. By all means, if they want to speak out, the Church should, but I'd prefer to see real moves within their organization to stop their priests from touching altar boys before they take the moral highground they don't have against a film that they likely haven't seen and wouldn't understand if they did. Which is a reference to the often-times archaeic nature of the Church.

 

What if I said I think you're standing up for pedophiles? I mean, simply making that allegation without textual support makes it true, right?

 

Really now. I've had issues with interpretations, and other people's comments to me, plenty of times on this board, but I've never been accused of supporting pedophilia and "making it easy" on pedophiles. Makes me glad we had this discussion.

 

Who benefits when you silence the Church on this issue? The Church is people like me. Why would you silence me on this issue?

 

Teachers have abused children, still do. Shall educators be called hypocrits for speaking out? Tell schools to clean up themselves before speaking. Political leaders have abused, shall we tell them to clean up their house before talking out? Non church goers have abused children, shall we tell them to clean up their house before talking out?

 

What actions do you want to see? The Catholic Churches are requring and doing background and criminal checks on everyone who comes in contact with youth. They have installed protection guidelines and are teaching the youth, parents, and Clergy to spot abuse and to report. Perhaps your Church isn't being that proactive, volunteer for the committee.

 

 

Tex, if I recall correctly, we've had arguments about art before. You've said you don't understand the arts. So how can you possibly justify "to say it's art is wrong"? I agree that if the only interest is money, it's wrong. But with a lot of art, you have to test the limits. You have to go out on a limb and you have to accept people's reactions. Art is a debate, it's a grey area. It's not mathematics where there are proven answers. This subject may be "new" to art, but it's certainly not the only time somebody has pushed the limitations further than people were ready for. The Graduate showed nipples. Truman Capote back stabbed a murderer in the name of his book In Cold Blood. Hell, there's even a movie out at the same Sundance Festival called Zoo about beastiality. Art is about taking risks. It's not about making sure nobody is offended in the process or with the final project. If there were no risks involved, it'd never progress.

 

Test the limits? OK I totally agree with that. But too many people, and it seems you are in that camp, are not ok with testing the limits. By agreeing to test the limits, one has to agree there are limits. So far, that doesn't seem to be the case. Some are accepting that the simulation of raping a child is within the limits. Some are not. Where in "testing the limits" is the understanding that the limit has been reached and needs to be reeled back in?

[Steff]

Big stones being thrown around in this thread...

[BobDylan]

Test the limits? OK I totally agree with that. But too many people, and it seems you are in that camp, are not ok with testing the limits. By agreeing to test the limits, one has to agree there are limits. So far, that doesn't seem to be the case. Some are accepting that the simulation of raping a child is within the limits. Some are not. Where in "testing the limits" is the understanding that the limit has been reached and needs to be reeled back in?

 

You make a valid point, however, most artists are aware of what the limits are. Actually and physically raping Dakata is beyond the limit. That's wrong, that's not in the name of art. But this is a fictionalization. It's a depiction. In fact, Dakota isn't even truly acting the rape out. Film is just a sequence of pictures. They filmed this scene by shooting several reaction shots. None of them are in real time, none of them are even shot sequentially. She was never really put in a position where she had to feel like she was being raped.

 

These types of depictions haven't only happened in film, either. They've happened in books -- which, if you ask me, has much more potential to bring form and power to it -- but nobody ever throws a fit about that. Why not? Why does it take a film to make the difference?

 

And to answer your question, to know the limits, things like this have to happen. Somebody has to have the hair to see if they've crossed the line.

Edited January 25, 2007 by BobDylan

[Gregory Pratt]

We'll go through this piece by piece.

 

Who benefits when you silence the Church on this issue? The Church is people like me. Why would you silence me on this issue?

 

Why would I volunteer for the committee when I'm trying to protect the pedophiles?

 

Where did I ever say, "Silence the Church!"? My original comment said that the Church should protect its own members before it criticizes a movie for "promoting pedophilia and rape" and furthered the hypocrisies presented by another poster.

 

Also: I love the religious frenzy that a) provoked you to accuse me of supporting pedophiles against justice and B) continues to misrepresent what I said. I never said that you, or the Church, should be silent.

 

Teachers have abused children, still do. Shall educators be called hypocrits for speaking out?

 

Depends. In certain situations, definitely. Like a school who covers up that their Coach has been molesting girls for years, and then gets busted, and then they fire him -- it's nice and all, but I don't personally care what they have to say about the matter. At a school I'm aware of -- a damn good school in Mt. Greenwood -- a kid stabbed another in the parking lot about two years ago. Not too deep, but deep enough to bleed. The school decided not to call the police, and talked parents out of it, too. If the people that I know were responsible started preaching about gang violence to me and preventing it, I'd call them hypocrites, because they didn't even suspend the kids who were involved so as to not invite media scrutiny.

 

In both cases, however -- hypothetical and real, and in both cases I know of real events just like those -- the people may have a right to say, "Don't make our mistakes," but they certainly don't have the right to attack the latest movie (that they probably haven't seen and wouldn't understand) just because they used to cover up pedophiles. And by that I mean, they lack the moral authority. This Catholic Church, today, lacks moral authority, IMO, in dealing with pedophiles, and they don't have any authority whatsoever to blast a movie about a troubled girl because they disliked a scene. And they can't use the cover of, "Well, we're trying to protect kids from this film that promotes pedophilia!" because that's bulls***. Nothing in this film promotes pedophilia. It's crazy, hearing people talk about it, and criticize it, as "promoting pedophilia." Give me a break.

 

Political leaders have abused, shall we tell them to clean up their house before talking out?

 

Whatever, man. These are false examples, so I'll just respond with a Hell yeah!!

 

Non church goers have abused children, shall we tell them to clean up their house before talking out?

 

Hell yeah!!

 

What actions do you want to see? The Catholic Churches are requring and doing background and criminal checks on everyone who comes in contact with youth. They have installed protection guidelines and are teaching the youth, parents, and Clergy to spot abuse and to report. Perhaps your Church isn't being that proactive, volunteer for the committee.

 

Right, background and criminal checks are well enough. I'd prefer it if they stopped transferring pedophiles to other cities once they receive complaints.

 

Although, I must say, I don't believe that the entire Church is guilty of harboring pedophiles (what the general Catholic Church is guilty of, IMO, is having archaeic minds at the top) but the entire organization deserves scorn when they attack art using some sort of Holy Highground.

[tigerfan]

Where did I ever say, "Silence the Church!"? My original comment said that the Church should protect its own members before it criticizes a movie for "promoting pedophilia and rape" and furthered the hypocrisies presented by another poster.

 

You didn't have to, the way you expressed it your view about the church speaking out on this said plenty.

[Gregory Pratt]

You didn't have to, the way you expressed it your view about the church speaking out on this said plenty.

 

I'm not responsible for other people's interpretations.

This is all nonsense -- it's a fictional rape, in a movie, that serves a purpose. It doesn't promote pedophilia, and that's crazy talk. That, more than anything, is what I object to in the church, and everyone else', objections. "The scene encourages pedophilia!" The hell it does.

[bmags]

just a little point:

 

in around 1997 there was a high profile movie sleepers, starring brad pitt among others. It had a scene where kids were forced to "service" the prison guards or else were hit over the top of the head. None was actually seen of course, but it was explicitly mentioned what was going on.

 

it was a powerful scene. it didn't numb the issue of this abuse. It's a story.

Edited January 26, 2007 by bmags

[santo=dorf]

QUOTE(bmags @ Jan 25, 2007 -> 05:00 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

just a little point:

 

in around 1997 there was a high profile movie Rounders, starring brad pitt among others. It had a scene where kids were forced to "service" the prison guards or else were hit over the top of the head. None was actually seen of course, but it was explicitly mentioned what was going on.

 

it was a powerful scene. it didn't numb the issue of this abuse. It's a story.

LOL!!

That's the poker movie with MATT DAMON!!!

 

Sleepers is the 1996 movie you are thinking of where Kevin Bacon forces one of the boys to strip naked in front of him only to put his clothes right back on. Later he specifically tells the boys he wants a blowjob.

 

How about that Nicholas Cage movie 8mm where he is investigating a bondage film involving a young girl?

[Steff]

How about that Nicholas Cage movie 8mm where he is investigating a bondage film involving a young girl?

 

 

The term is "Snuff" film where it actually implied her death - there were graphic scenes of her bound, gagged, beaten, and bloody. She was portrayed to be 14, IIRC.

 

Also, wasn't Sissy Spaceck's role in the Raggidy Man back in the late 70's early 80's underage and raped?

[bmags]

jodie foster as a 14 year old prostitute

[Steff]

jodie foster as a 14 year old prostitute

 

 

Not to mention a half dozen movies on Lifetime any given Sunday where the plot is a teen getting raped by the HS football team.

[BobDylan]

jodie foster as a 14 year old prostitute

 

Good one. It should also be mentioned that Taxi Driver is considered one of the greatest movies of all time.

[jackie hayes]

Just a factual question; has the Catholic Church said anything about the film, or just the Catholic League?

[DrunkBomber]

I could see how this could be extremely controversial. If her parents are ok with it theres not a lot that can be said though, theyll make it anyway. Its gonna be sick seeing the pedophiles line up to see this one.

[bmags]

Its gonna be sick seeing the pedophiles line up to see this one.

 

i'm sure you'll be able to point them out. I'd rather they watch a movie about said act than committ said act, if there was a choice.

[Texsox]

It is not hypocritical for someone, or some organization, to make a mistake, learn from it, and speak out against it. A drunk driver who later joins MADD and speaks about the dangers of drunk driving is not a hypocrite. The person who has abused drugs who now speaks to kids about their dangers, should not be labeled a hypocrite.

 

The Catholic Church is over ONE BILLION people world wide. Of that over one billion, at least a billion did not abuse nor cover up child abuse. To call today's Catholics hypocrites for speaking out against something that should be universally despise, because of the acts of a few, is wrong.

 

Part of my job is teaching youth protection to non-profit youth serving agencies. The Catholic Church has adopted some of the most stringent guidelines of any youth serving agency. They have learned from their mistakes and continue to be diligent it never happens again. But as we all know, no system is fool proof. Banks get robbed, identities get stolen, and sadly kids are abused. If there was a way to stop crimes, we wouldn't be building prisons.

 

Pedophiles are attracted to kids and will join those activities that place them in close contact with children. They will coach sports, join the Church youth group, be Scout leaders, 4H leaders, a Big Brother or Big Sister, become teachers, day care workers, etc. They are probably heterosexual with a family and children of their own. They go anywhere they think they can find their next victim.

 

When a child is abused, everyone in that organization feels the pain and outrage. Everyone. If in that outrage and pain, they speak out, loudly, against it, they aren't being hypocrites, they are being good, decent people.

 

At some point the entertainment industry hits limits, or at least should. Talk about barriers coming down, what is the goal? How much of this do you want to see? If striking down barriers is a good thing, think about how much graphic violence, graphic sexual assaults our grandchildren will get to see. Maybe a four year old prostitute getting gang raped by prison guards. Whoo Whoo that's art! That's pushing boundaries. That's where our society needs to go.

 

At some point we need to say enough is enough. You've pushed the boundaries as far as you need to.

[Steff]

Taking liberties and assuming is waaay overrated. And rude.

 

 

Cheers to the pompous asses.

[Texsox]

I can't understand the point of view that these boundaries in how child abuse is depicted in movies should come down. Why anyone would want to see more or that, and in greater detail, sickens me. I understand pushing some limits, but not in child abuse. Someone tell me just how much violence and abuse against children they want to see in movies? Is there really that great of a demand to see young children abused? Isn't it possible we have reached a limit? Maybe Taxi Driver was the edge?

[LosMediasBlancas]

Its gonna be sick seeing the pedophiles line up to see this one.

 

 

A while back we went to see a film called 'Hard Candy' which is about a young girl who seduces a man and when he comes on to her, she takes him hostage and tortures him. I don't judge a book by the cover, but there were a LOT of really creeepy looking guys sitting by themselves in that movie theater.

[bmags]

I can't understand the point of view that these boundaries in how child abuse is depicted in movies should come down. Why anyone would want to see more or that, and in greater detail, sickens me. I understand pushing some limits, but not in child abuse. Someone tell me just how much violence and abuse against children they want to see in movies? Is there really that great of a demand to see young children abused? Isn't it possible we have reached a limit? Maybe Taxi Driver was the edge?

 

don't you think you should hold off judging it until you've seen the scene yourself, or have the reviews come out about the scene?

[Rex Kickass]

Apparently the rape is considered "graphically suggestive."

 

I've read that you see a zipper unzip and then nothing is shot below the shoulder.

[BobDylan]

I can't understand the point of view that these boundaries in how child abuse is depicted in movies should come down. Why anyone would want to see more or that, and in greater detail, sickens me. I understand pushing some limits, but not in child abuse. Someone tell me just how much violence and abuse against children they want to see in movies? Is there really that great of a demand to see young children abused? Isn't it possible we have reached a limit? Maybe Taxi Driver was the edge?

 

Tex, you have to take art in context. The movie is more than just the rape. It's a story. The rape is only a part of it. The characters will develop, grow and learn in some way from it. It'll also propose more questions once you actually see the story instead of judging it before hand. For instance, in Taxi Driver, DeNiro's character had to kill people to get the 14 year old prostitute back home. Is that heroic? Is it not? And so on. The boundry isn't just depicting rape...it's putting it out there so other artists can use it in different ways so they can put some other amount of awareness out there. So they can pose more questions for the general public about the atrocity in child rape. This is why breaking boundries in art is important.