Posted on 01/25/2007 6:51:52 AM PST by AnnaZ
Her parents ok'd this role. Her agent ok'd this role, and she ok'd this role.
Every person involved withthis film needs to be investigated with respect to their interest in child pornography, and this young lady needs to be taken out of the parents home in the mean time.
If this happened in any other sector of our society, it would be considered child abuse.
wasn't it Robert Redford? and his Sundance films?
"...echoed my complaints about the hoary plot, terrible dialogue and clichés marking every scene..."
"...Bad plot, bad dialogue and cliches. Isn't that the hallmark of all porn?..."
Not only porn, but most movies and roughly 90% of everything on the tube nowdays.
One thing I have not heard is whether the rape is actually depicted, albeit with simulated contact, or takes place off camera. I don't ask for prurient interest but to try and ascertain if the flap is just typical Hollywood hype. It seems to me that the latter has already been done, even with a child as the subject matter, but if it's the former I don't see how allowing a minor to participate could be legal.
There is also a bestiality film to go along with child-rape film.
Absolutely, 1000% correct!
Interesting point. If a person has an electronic copy of this movie stored on a PC, does that constitute possession of child pornography? That might depend on the police and DA.
Jeanine Pirro saw the movie and said on Hannity and Colmes that there was no actionable content.
Did you read the article? They tried selling it in HW and couldn't fine a taker. Look at the production credits for this on imdb. It's a non-Hollywood indie.
Don't kid yourself. Hollywood fully supports the Sundance film festival and the film being there. All of their celebrities support it being there. Robert Redford supports the movie being there otherwise it wouldn't be there. They would embrace it if they didn't think there was going to be some sort of backlash against them. All in the name of "getting the word out there" on child rape - which is completely bogus.
There is also a bestiality film to go along with child-rape film.
All done in good taste and with good intentions, I'm sure! -sarc
I'm talking about financial support. The whole point of Sundance is to shop around these fringe films that couldn't find mainstream financing amongst Hollywood studios. When Harvey Weinstein doesn't want your movie...you're fringe! 90% of what plays at Sundance is close to worthless from a cinematic point of view. My point is that instead of blaming some non-existent Hollywood monolith talk about the person who actually made this film (writer, director, producer Deborah Kampmeier).
I'm not sure. It might have been.
"In the film, [plot] his character lures Fanning.."
---
The power or suggestion or subliminal messages influence people to act.
Advertisers use this technique to influence consumers to purchase goods, services, products.
Executive producer: Robin Wright Penn
Married: is/was to actor Sean Penn
Number of children: 2
I think Robert Redfort should have thought twice about promoting this type of film. He's going to pay for it at the box office, methinks.
...Since I am one of the few who’ve actually seen it, let me explain something important. There is no point that I can find to the child’s rape.
Sounds suspiciously like the fiction book penned by Jim Webb (D).
On the contrary. This movie and Zoolander, or whatever the bestiality film is called, have gotten Sundance more national press than they've probably had in a decade (since the Indie movement flourished after the sucess of Reservior Dogs and Pulp Fiction in the 1990s).
Harvey didn't want Lord Of The Rings either.
Michael Jackson, Peter Yarrow, and Roman Polanski are not complete outcasts in the entertainment industry.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.