chancery66 wrote:
"The child actress here is more than old enough to understand what she is doing. More important than that is the fact that she is completely surrounded by a huge crew holding boom mikes and sound equipment and tape measures and cameras and reflectors and, and, and... If you seriously think for one instant that any kid in those circumstances can be 'traumatised' by kissing a man because she somehow thinks it's 'real' then you are even denser than you already sound."
Something to add.
If a child is old enough to understand it's a movie, it's acting, it's a kind of game and it knows it should cry though nothing hurts, to run away when nothing (or a friendly dog) chases him/her, to eat when he's not hungry and it's not lunchtime, to give wrong answers in "school" (though knowing the correct one), to call some strange woman "mother", then these kids can also understand that a kiss doesn't mean the man is in love with them or molesting them for real. If that was the only scene in the movie, a smaller (but much smaller then Jena) child might be confused, but that's not very probable - most of modern children spend too much time watching TV and know perfectly well what movies are. People who are in 50's and older, who maybe didn't even have TV and watched a few movies in theatres during whole childhood shouldn't mistake and equal their childhood knowledge with today kids.
Yes, sometimes you can't get every expression on child's face that you want in the movie. Sometimes tricks have to be used. I remember I read about a child (don't remember what was the movie) who was told his pet died, so the director could get the tears on his face. That is maybe unfair, a little spoilt, wicked. But I still don't think it's such a big deal. (After all, the kid was happy to find his pet alive.) Don't we cheat our children every day? "If you don't cry when the doctor gives you injection I'll give you..." - all kinds of promises; child usually forgets them because of fear and we gladly ignore them. But later, when the fear vanishes, maybe next day, the kid remembers, and often doesn't say anything. Yet, it stays in memory for good. "We'll go to Zoo on Sunday." Nothing harmful? But it's raining on Sunday. The kid of 5 or 6 won't understand why would rain be a problem, also a parent never mentioned it before. He/she won't remember the rain, but will feel cheated. "You'll put a star on a top of Christmas tree" says mother to her child. But the father promised the same to its sibling. One of them won't have the promise fulfilled.
We are underrating our own children. Through centuries children, who were by far less mature comparing the same age kids today, had so many responsibilities since the early childhood. Even kids who went to school (and many didn't at all, beacuse at that early age they already had some duties) usually ended their schooling at age of 10 or 11. Only lucky ones, richest or best and living close to schools, had some opportunities to continue education. Do you think the majority that stayed at home played whole day?
And today, with children being mature earlier, being educated surpassingly better than ever in history, being exposed to all benefits and challenges of technics, science etc. - these children are accused of not understanding what is movie and what is reality! If it were so, the mankind would be in a big, big trouble.
reply
share
18 years ago
[deleted]
przgzr
18 years ago
It's right. I apologize to people who read my long posts made with too much passion and saying nothing important about the movie.
I simply get carried away now and then by people who not only do realize it is a film, but would reduce allowed movie contents to such poverty that there would be nothing worth watching. And I'm afraid that these people influenced moviemakers because it is hard to find a real brave and intriguing movie made in last 10 years.
reply
share
18 years ago
[deleted]
przgzr
18 years ago
Children play games. That is one of the ways how they learn, grow up, mature. During those plays children have their roles, and they act. When we were kids, we played cowboys and Indians, policemen and gangsters etc. Some of them included pretending to be violent, cruel, hurt, wounded, dead, that you hate or like someone, you have to defend, you revenge... all scale of emotions. And each child did his best to play this role most convincing as he/she can. Certainly, most of these actings were poor, but if not so than Jena Malone, Natalie Portman, Macaulay Culkin, Brad Renfro wouldn't be anything special.
None of this kids I was playing with became gangsters (in fact, the policemen neither, and as you can guess, also no Indians), and none had mental disorders. However, I am much concerned for children who grow up today, being exposed to PC games, growing up with only a computer screen in their company. Even if the games are not violent (though is't not likely to expect that) I can still see poor chances for normal socialization and emotional maturation. And this process is supported by parents who believe that their children are safer at home than anywhere else. What about their mantal health? Noone will become Indian...
A sane child would handle it because at the end of the day it will be surrounded by its normal environment. (By far bigger danger is the abnormal envirnoment created by star-system and media who disable these children to have normal life.) And normal family which can handle real problems that their members have can surely cope with any misunderstandings that may appear due to movies, but I believe it wouldn't be necessary.
reply
share
18 years ago
[deleted]
przgzr
18 years ago
Of course there is a difference. But also there is a difference among children, and those who can't act won't be given such difficult roles. If child can act different characters, different scenes, different tasks, only then you can expect him/her to be able to play a role and a scene like this. It means it is a child with abilities far above average, we can't talk then about such an actor as about a kid playing Indians in his yard.
And sane environment is something that society should do more about. Praising a good acting, yes, a child actor is still a child and his good work must be praised and awarded, but making him a frontpage star like Culkin... there should be a responsibility of media required.
Finally, I said "sane child". Certainly, you can't be 100 percent sure if a child is really sane enough for this work. But when you take a 4 or 5 years old child and start training any sport, it is not only a physical effort, but a completely changed way of life, and it doesn't last few days or weeks like making a movie, but year after year through child, teenage, young adult years... There are uncomparably more little sportsmen than actors. And how many of them become Olympic winners? And what happens to the rest of them - especially if they haven't been that sane as they looked? But noone will find disturbing their early waking up, hours of daily trainings, traveling to campuses, glaciers, pools, going to school only now and then and then appearing on exams like college students... Nobody will question about their childhood once they bring Olympic medal to their country. An nobody will ask about childhood of those kids who didn't manage to reach championships, because nobody knows them. Similar thing is with musicians (day by day for hours sitting by piano, or holding a violin) or dancers or... Interesting, only acting seems to bother people, as the most disturbing thing than can ruin the chilhdood.
reply
share
18 years ago
[deleted]
przgzr
18 years ago
People question... from time to time... and what is the effect? I believe those trainings are putting children in bigger risks (both somatic and psychical) than any movie role, but I don't see less kids on sport competitions, or maybe their best results comming when they're a few years older. I can only see less good movies because producers are scared of possible consequences (that audience may boycott the movie, or censors may cut it making that a bad advertisment), while sports managers and trainers are safe, people will never boycott sport competitions. So nobody is disturbed by those questions...
reply
share
18 years ago
[deleted]
przgzr
18 years ago
..."if you want to say that being a child star is riskier than playing a rape victim"...
Yes, that is exactly what I want to say. At least two reasons:
1. Rape scene is made, I believe, in one day. As any other scene hard to make it will make some effect, which will disappear soon if the child, as I said, lives in normal family. However, a status of a star is longlasting, so whatever consequences may it cause, there is not time to heal them. Of course, one can say, what if the matter shown in the movie happens later in real life. That is a risk, but the same as if you make a scene when child's (character) mother dies, or a carcrash happens, or any other possible tragic event occurs - if we avoid them all, how can we make any movie unless we make a decision to forbid all children acting.
2. Whatever may be the content of the scene, modern school-age children can perfectly distinguish movie from reality. Being a star is something that happens to them, real children in their real life, and not some character they play in the movie. Though you dislike comparing playing cowboys and Indians and playing in the movie, children see it all as a kind of a game. But when their private life changes by pictures in magazines, interviews, TV shows, it is something that is not a game, and it won't go away next morning or in few weeks when the shooting is over. Even many adult stars suffer because of the lack of privacy, imagine how can a 10, 13 or 16 year person handle that!
Avoiding introducing kids in star-system wouldn't harm the movie - but it would harm the producer's and manager's profits. Avoiding certain scenes ot topics in the movie directly influences the quality, importance and artistic impression of the movie. So, yes, it was exactly what I was trying to say.
reply
share