Political Correctness & Simulated Rape

[zero]

First, the black guy from Grey's Anatomy is likely to be fired. From IMDB:

Isaiah Washington is on the verge of being fired from hit TV show Grey's Anatomy, according to media reports in the US. Washington sparked a public backlash last week when he denied calling co-star TR Knight "a f****t" during a press conference at the Golden Globe Awards. And now, according to E! Online reporter Kristin Veitch, executives at ABC are looking for ways to sack the troubled star, who plays Dr. Preston Burke on the show. She writes on her blog, "(I) just received word from a highly placed source within the Touchstone/ABC family that ABC and Disney executives are currently considering the option of firing Isaiah Washington from Grey's Anatomy, effective immediately, without having him appear in any kind of farewell episode. According to this reliable source, if the network does follow through with this option, the producers are likely to run a full-screen announcement at the beginning of the first Burke-less episode that announces Isaiah Washington is no longer part of the show. I'm also told by various sources that the loss of Preston Burke is not an easy task for Grey's writing staff to deal with, given that he has a major storyline (including a life-changing event) coming in the next few episodes that air during February sweeps. Those episodes have already been shot." ABC issued a statement last week calling Washington's behavior "unacceptable" and he has since issued an apology and met with gay leaders.

Now, I'm not a Grey's Anatomy fan, but it's certainly one of the better shows on TV in the midst of shit like American Idol. So because this guy says "faggot," he could get fired? That's just strange to me. The bolded part is just hilarious to me because of the phrase "gay leaders." Just like it made me laugh when Michael Richards met with "African-American Leaders." This is why people hate the entertainment industry, because everything is fucking pageantry. It all has to be made into song and dance, bullshit dramatics.

Here's how something like this would be handled in the real world: Guy 1 calls Guy 2 a faggot, Guy 2 gets upset, Guy 1 realizes that was wrong and apologizes. In this bizarre world, it's Guy 1 calls Guy 2 a "f----t," Guy 1 denies it, Guy 1 later admits it, Guy 1 apologizes, Guy 1 has to meet with "gay leaders," network executives freak the fuck out, press gets all over it, Guy 1 loses his job, show storylines get completely fucked up. Look, Washington's an asshole for calling the dude a faggot, but I don't get the spectacle at all. Is this now because of the Michael Richards thing that no one can say anything about anybody without losing their job or having to meet with "leaders?" I just find it especially hilarious that ABC calls this "unacceptable," yet they have no problem airing the American Music Awards, which is constantly giving awards to artists like Eminem who uses the word "faggot" about 18 times a song.

Oh but that's not all for today. Just in case you think I went all conservative up there, here comes me slamming the Catholic League:

By DEBBIE HUMMEL, Associated Press Writer 50 minutes ago

PARK CITY, Utah - At a festival that features several films with sexual content, including full male nudity and a documentary about bestiality, a southern Gothic tale that includes the rape of a young girl is causing the biggest stir.

ADVERTISEMENT

"Hounddog" is the story of Lewellen, a girl played by 12-year-old

Dakota Fanning, who is growing up in the 1960s South. She is a free-spirit obsessed with

Elvis Presley and has little supervision by her abusive father and alcoholic grandmother.

Even before the first screening of "Hounddog" at the

Sundance Film Festival this week, a Christian film critic, citing Fanning's age, decried the movie as child abuse, and Roman Catholic activist Bill Donohue called for a boycott.

Fanning is defending her work as well as the movie, and so is the head of Sundance, who said it was courageous for director Deborah Kampmeier to tackle "challenging material." "Hounddog" is entered in the festival's dramatic category.

"It's not a rape movie," Fanning said Tuesday. "That's not even the point of the film."

The disturbing scene lasts a few minutes but is not graphic. There is no nudity, the scene is very darkly lit and only Fanning's face and hand are shown.

Kampmeier said it took her a decade to get the film made, largely because of the rape scene, but cutting it was a compromise she was unwilling to make.

"This issue is so silenced in our society. There are a lot of women who are alone with this story," she said.

"When you're shooting a film, it's the images you line up next to each other that create a story," Kampmeier said. "If you have a hand hitting the ground, Dakota screaming 'stop' and you see a zipper unzip — that creates a rape."

Ted Baehr, chairman of the Christian Film and Television Commission and publisher of the Web site movieguide.org, claims "Hounddog" breaks federal child-pornography law. He said the law covers material that "appears" to show minors engaging in sexually explicit conduct.

"Even if they're not actually performing the explicit act, we are dealing with a legal issue here," he said.

Baehr said Fanning is being exploited in the film, and that it should be considered an outrage.

"Children at 12 do not have the ability to make the types of decisions that we're talking about here," he said. "If we're offended by some comedian's racial slur, why aren't we offended by somebody taking advantage of a 12-year-old child?"

Two other children perform in the film. Cody Hanford plays Buddy, and Isabelle Fuhrman plays a girl nicknamed "Grasshopper."

Kampmeier said she talked with the children and their parents but didn't go into great detail with the young actors about the content.

"I didn't have to articulate to Cody and Isabelle the psychological elements that were going on in this film," she said. "I used images to tell the story. I didn't manipulate these children or explain to these children what was going on."

Fanning said she and Kampmeier talked for months before the film was shot and spent a day painting pottery together and discussing the story.

"It's not really happening," Fanning said of a rape. "It's a movie, and it's called acting. I'm not going through anything. Cody and Isabelle aren't going through anything, their characters are.

"And for me, when it's done it's done," she said. "I don't even think about it anymore."

Sundance director Geoffrey Gilmore said independent filmmakers should pursue sensitive subject matter.

"I feel the mission and very nature of what Sundance is about is to provide a platform for that," he said.

So someone makes a movie with simulated rape of a 12 year old - which admittedly, is unnerving - but now the Catholic League is looking to put people in jail because it's "child porn." Dakota Fanning comes off as more rational and level-headed in the interview than most adults stirring up this whole storm are. To say "children at 12 do not have the ability to make the types of decisions that we're talking about here" is insulting. Kids are way smarter than they're given credit and certainly know what rape is. Does anyone honestly think Dakota Fanning is going to be traumatized as a result of filming this? With their logic, I don't see how anyone under the age of 18 can act in any movie rated PG-13 or higher where something sexual could happen. I'm not going to be some film snob who applauds the filmmakers for being so edgy or bringing this issue to the forefront, I just find it funny that we live in a world where if a 12 year old actress even says "rape" it makes people uncomfortable. Meanwhile, 12 year olds are actually being raped in their homes. We worry about fiction so much that we forget reality. Just like when boys kill each other because of Grand Theft Auto, we worry about the video games instead of the fact that there are people actually killing each other. And lets not even discuss the irony of the Catholic League getting up in arms over simulated rape.

[TGC]

Well said on both topics. And both are equally stupid in how people are reacting.

[Ananas]

It's funny, because Disney, or rather Disney and ABC's parent company Buena Vista, didn't have a problem distributing Apocalypto after Mel Gibson said what he did. I guess there are more economic than ethical concerns when it comes to who they punish.

And wow, Dakota really wants that Oscar eh?

[Gongsun Zan]

It's career suicide though. No matter what happens in the future, the actress is forever going to be remembered as 'that little girl who got raped in a movie'.

[SwantonEdge]

I think we're all missing the important issue here:

a documentary about bestiality

[hedcase]

The only thing I can think of about that guy getting fired off Grey's Annatomy was that he hadn't addmited to being gay had he? I guess that could have made it worse cause he broke the guys trust, only thing i can think of but still shouldn't be enough to be fired

[Ananas]

It's career suicide though. No matter what happens in the future, the actress is forever going to be remembered as 'that little girl who got raped in a movie'.

[Gongsun Zan]

It's career suicide though. No matter what happens in the future, the actress is forever going to be remembered as 'that little girl who got raped in a movie'.

So do you remember Leonardo DiCaprio as the guy who fucked David Thewlis in Total Eclipse? Or maybe instead for the infinite other roles that were more relevant and successful? Or maybe you're being sarcastic and I didn't get it.

[zero]

I think we're all missing the important issue here:

a documentary about bestiality

Which to me is way more disturbing than Dakota Fanning. It's a documentary about the guy who died after getting fucked by the horse and it paints him in a sympathetic light.

[Kaney]

I just find it funny that we live in a world where if a 12 year old actress even says "rape" it makes people uncomfortable

Admittedly, I'm slightly old-fasioned when it comes to matters such as this, but I don't see why there's anything wrong with that. To me, a twelve year old is far too young to be sexually active, and even though I'm not mentally picturing a 12 year old actually being raped, using the word in that context still creates a psychological link that, to me at least, is disturbing, even if only on a subconcious level.

I'm not saying the film makers should be demonised, or applauded, because I don't really ever expect to see the film myself, and yeah, the overreaction is ridiculous, but I just don't think that it's a subject that really needs to be filmed. I think it's funny that we live in a world where things as revolting as paedophilia, or beastiality or whatever are accepted on face value almost because of the politically correct culture going on. I know the actress isn't bothered, and that it's only a film, but is it really a gap in the market that modern cinema should be filling? :ohwell:

The child porn argument is pathetic though, and is kinda missing the point.

[Gongsun Zan]

I just find it funny that we live in a world where if a 12 year old actress even says "rape" it makes people uncomfortable

Admittedly, I'm slightly old-fasioned when it comes to matters such as this, but I don't see why there's anything wrong with that. To me, a twelve year old is far too young to be sexually active, and even though I'm not mentally picturing a 12 year old actually being raped, using the word in that context still creates a psychological link that, to me at least, is disturbing, even if only on a subconcious level.

I'm not saying the film makers should be demonised, or applauded, because I don't really ever expect to see the film myself, and yeah, the overreaction is ridiculous, but I just don't think that it's a subject that really needs to be filmed. I think it's funny that we live in a world where things as revolting as paedophilia, or beastiality or whatever are accepted on face value almost because of the politically correct culture going on. I know the actress isn't bothered, and that it's only a film, but is it really a gap in the market that modern cinema should be filling? :ohwell:

The child porn argument is pathetic though, and is kinda missing the point.

[SwantonEdge]

So she's mature enough to deal with a movie where millions of people are killed, a movie about a retarded man trying to raise a daughter, 2 different movies in which she is kidnapped for money (1 of which involves her bodyguard going on a killing spree in order to find her), and I won't even begin to get into the bullshit that went on in 'Hide and Seek'.

To me all of those issues are as complex, if not more complex, than child abuse. It's just the 'taboo' nature of sex that makes it seem all that more serious.

She seems like a very intelligent, very mature young actress. If she doesn't have a problem with it, than neither should we.

[ROC]

Now now now, we're forgetting the most important thing, which is now how happy LL is after learning the news of this Dakota Fanning rape movie.

[zero]

To me, a twelve year old is far too young to be sexually active

Agreed. But I think it is naive to assume that we live in a society where we believe a 12 year old doesn't know what rape or sex is. Today's kids that are 12+ are a lot more clued in than their parents and grandparents were and that frightens people. So instead of talking about these things, they're ignored or demonized and we get harmful experiments like abstinence-only sex-education. I'm certainly not saying this movie will fix any of that, and I have no interest in seeing it, it's just the reactions that bug me.

So she's mature enough to deal with a movie where millions of people are killed, a movie about a retarded man trying to raise a daughter, 2 different movies in which she is kidnapped for money (1 of which involves her bodyguard going on a killing spree in order to find her), and I won't even begin to get into the bullshit that went on in 'Hide and Seek'.

To me all of those issues are as complex, if not more complex, than child abuse. It's just the 'taboo' nature of sex that makes it seem all that more serious.

A very valid point. The Catholic League seems to have no problem with movies where children are kidnapped, beaten, are killed or are killers themselves, but this is taking it too far? Look all the way back to 1956 where an eight year old Patricia McCormack played a murderous child who had no dark history, just a cold-blooded selfish killer. That was fifty years ago and was acceptable, but the notion of a child being raped - a real issue that happens every day - is just too much to film?

[Kaney]

I just find it funny that we live in a world where if a 12 year old actress even says "rape" it makes people uncomfortable

Admittedly, I'm slightly old-fasioned when it comes to matters such as this, but I don't see why there's anything wrong with that. To me, a twelve year old is far too young to be sexually active, and even though I'm not mentally picturing a 12 year old actually being raped, using the word in that context still creates a psychological link that, to me at least, is disturbing, even if only on a subconcious level.

I'm not saying the film makers should be demonised, or applauded, because I don't really ever expect to see the film myself, and yeah, the overreaction is ridiculous, but I just don't think that it's a subject that really needs to be filmed. I think it's funny that we live in a world where things as revolting as paedophilia, or beastiality or whatever are accepted on face value almost because of the politically correct culture going on. I know the actress isn't bothered, and that it's only a film, but is it really a gap in the market that modern cinema should be filling? :ohwell:

The child porn argument is pathetic though, and is kinda missing the point.

My guess is that's it for one of those pretentious artsy movie festival things, where a film's 'quality' is judged on it's ability to do just that. Child rape and bestiality are basically ways of getting cheap heat these days, ever since sexual acts went mainstream. Fortunately, I don't think either of these films are going to go anywhere, so you don't exactly have to worry about them trying to fill any gaps in modern cinema.

I don't expect it to become a new genre or anything close, maybe I worded it wrongly, I just meant that I never expected the topic to arise in the first place

So she's mature enough to deal with a movie where millions of people are killed, a movie about a retarded man trying to raise a daughter, 2 different movies in which she is kidnapped for money (1 of which involves her bodyguard going on a killing spree in order to find her), and I won't even begin to get into the bullshit that went on in 'Hide and Seek'.

To me all of those issues are as complex, if not more complex, than child abuse. It's just the 'taboo' nature of sex that makes it seem all that more serious.

She seems like a very intelligent, very mature young actress. If she doesn't have a problem with it, than neither should we.

I'd really like to see how you justify saying that a retard raising his daughter is more complex, or disturbing which is more the point I was arguing, than a little girl being raped.

Secondly, it's nothing to do with the subject being taboo. It's the fact that while there is absolutely nothing wrong with showing a man and a women having sex, there is something deeply, morally wrong about showing any person being raped, and thats not even involving the age issue.

And lastly, yeah, thats a really stupid defense. She doesn't have a problem, so we shouldn't? Since when did our emotions and opinions become overruled by a twelve year old? I know she is fine with it, because she is fine with doing her job, acting the role and portraying a child being raped. As a viewer, I'd be someone watching the character of a little child being raped by an adult and it's nothing something I'd want to see/imagine, nor should I be told that there's something wrong with me not wanting to see it. I'm not arguing about the content of the film, I'm discussing the moral implications of why a film like this would need to be made.

A very valid point. The Catholic League seems to have no problem with movies where children are kidnapped, beaten, are killed or are killers themselves, but this is taking it too far? Look all the way back to 1956 where an eight year old Patricia McCormack played a murderous child who had no dark history, just a cold-blooded selfish killer. That was fifty years ago and was acceptable, but the notion of a child being raped - a real issue that happens every day - is just too much to film?

Well, the way I see it is thats just semantics. Watching a film where people are being killed is acceptable because people being killed is a part of life. People die, it happens, and it's unavoidable. To compare child rape to people being killed, even in the realm of film, is to imply that kids are raped as an everyday part of life. Knowing that your 12 year old little girl will some day die, is inevitable, and something you should come to terms with. Knowing that your 12 year old little girl will some day be raped, is not.

Edited January 24, 2007 by Kaneanite

[Skummy]

The argument of whether the film needs to be made or not comes down to an age old argument about film, and about art as a whole. Essentially, should it act as a veil or a mirror? Some people want escapism from their films and, as such, wouldn't want a film like this made. Other people want films to reflect what's happening in the world, in which case there's no problem with this film being made.

I see no problem at all with the film being made, personally. If you don't like it, don't go and watch it. Ultimately, I suppose whether it should be there or not depends on the context of the film, and if it's necessary or just put in to cause controversy, I don't know which it is, so I can't comment on that.

[NIN Horror]

Well, the way I see it is thats just semantics. Watching a film where people are being killed is acceptable because people being killed is a part of life. People die, it happens, and it's unavoidable. To compare child rape to people being killed, even in the realm of film, is to imply that kids are raped as an everyday part of life. Knowing that your 12 year old little girl will some day die, is inevitable, and something you should come to terms with. Knowing that your 12 year old little girl will some day be raped, is not.

[Kaney]

Well, the way I see it is thats just semantics. Watching a film where people are being killed is acceptable because people being killed is a part of life. People die, it happens, and it's unavoidable. To compare child rape to people being killed, even in the realm of film, is to imply that kids are raped as an everyday part of life. Knowing that your 12 year old little girl will some day die, is inevitable, and something you should come to terms with. Knowing that your 12 year old little girl will some day be raped, is not.

Cambodia says hello.

Ugh.

Does every single human being ever live in 'Cambodia'? No. Will every single human being ever die? Yes. Point null and void.

And I agree with Skumfrog, I guess. To me movies are about escapism, but different strokes and all that.

[Guest RINGY SAID DANCE]

Kaney is racist for not caring about the Cambodians.

Band.

[Kaney]

BUT THEY'RE NOT REAL PEOPLE!