First of all, I haven’t seen the film in question, but overall, I tend to side with those who feel there isn’t any mental abuse going on in such a situation. I mean, sheesh, folks, they take enormous pains not to harm any animals during filming. Don’t you think SAG would prohibit mental torture of child actors? Don’t you think the kid’s mother would object? Don’t you think even one person of the dozens that are present on a set during filming would stand up and say, “hey, let’s not traumatize junior here just to get some footage in the can”?
Some points to remember:
Child actors are professionals, and even a 5-year-old actor can have a couple years of experience in front of the cameras.
Your perception of the child as being 4 or 5 probably indicates that he was more like 6 or 7, old enough, and experienced enough to understand make-believe, acting and how to create a convincing performance. The kid probably has an acting coach working with him constantly.
Even the shortest scene is usually spliced together from multiple takes, or at least is the result of much rehearsal and numerous previous takes. Only Ed Wood went with a single take for a scene, and look at the dreck he was responsible for.
Most children are adept at play-acting anyway. A child actor with coaching, experience, etc. is going to be that much better than the average child, who is often a better natural actor than the average adult.
Regardless of how real things look onscreen, movie sets are phony and how a story is filmed and put together are disjointed. Even a child can understand that what’s going on is not real.
The Dave-Guy
“since my daughter’s only half-Jewish, can she go in up to her knees?” J.H. Marx
I don’t know if SAG prevents that kind of abuse. That was partly the intent of my original question and we haven’t heard an answer yet. Anyone know?
I’m not at all sure the kid’s mother would object. Ever seen a stage mom who’s totally indifferent to her kid’s feelings? Apparently some of the posters here would insist that “My kid is just a terrific actor, Mr. Director, so go right ahead.”
For you folks who insist that the kid – any professional actor kid, regardless of age – would know “it’s not real,” does that mean it’s not abusive? Does that mean you can do anything, no matter how innately disgusting, with the kid as long as you’ve told him it’s pretend? I say small kids shouldn’t be exposed to something like a bloody pretend ‘mother’ and all the attending chaos even if they aren’t really terrified. (This kid was.)
– Greg, Atlanta
It’s possible, but what you see on the screen is not evidence of any abuse happening. You might as well try to arrest Anthony Perkins for killing Janet Leigh. You think the kid was truly terrorized, but that only means that he portrayed terror well, and you don’t need to be scared to death to act like you are. Your assumption that young children can’t act is badly flawed and ultimately condescending.
You can’t tell without being on the set. As a rule of thumb, though, if the kid is old enough to talk, he’s acting.
What is this movie you’re talking about? It should be simple to look up the age of the child actor. I suspect he was several years older than you think he was.
That’s not the case as you described. Sure you can abuse a child, but the portrayal in the film is not evidence of any abuse.
And given the scene as you described, its hardly likely the child was doing anything other than acting. The key point you keep ignoring is that the kid KNOWS that the actress in the scene is not his mother.
What you describe could only be abuse if the child was pulled off the street, and put into the scene – if the actress hired for play the role happened to look enough like his mother to fool him. That’s highly unlikely; movies are too expensive to allow the possibility that the kid will say “that’s not mommy” and ruin the take. Scenes are rehearsed and blocked (something else you fail to acknowledge); by the time the cameras roll, the child would know EXACTLY what was going on.
The actor “Sky Rumph” (that name alone might be abuse) played “C.J. Age 5”. Having never seen the film, I can only assume that this is the actor. Here’s his page on IMDB: http://us.imdb.com/Name?Rumph,+Sky
There’s not much there. No birthdate or anything but since “Cry” he’s been in Chaplin, Ghosts of Mississippi, and “Days of our Lives” on two separate occasions playing what appears to be two separate characters. Maybe some soap hounds can identify him.
Ok, so we’ve got the kid’s age waaaay up there to 5 years old. Thanks for the info.
I certainly don’t want to insult the talents of all those fine little actors, Realitychuck, so for the sake of argument, let me grant you that the kid was acting. (I think you’re dead wrong about that, and I’m the one who saw the movie. But for the sake of argument…)
Would you actually allow your young child to participate in such a scene? Would you allow your kid to participate in pretending to kill ‘mommy’ and let adults scream truly horrible things while holding the child and running around with a knife? Why? That is seriously screwed up. There’s no justification for exposing a child to that – not money and not some lofty ambitions about art.
(Yeah, I know they can use blocking and editing to fake us out, but the kid WAS in the scene. There were continuous shots that clearly included the child. He definitely saw and heard these things.)
I can think of plenty of things that shouldn’t be screamed in front of a 5-year-old, and plenty of things they shouldn’t see, even if you thoroughly explain that you’re just pretending.
I suppose the debate here sort of answers my question, though. Apparently, some people would not see anything wrong with pimping their kid for this type of “acting” and the film crews could rationalize it all at the end of the day.
– Greg, Atlanta
Waitaminnit, the IMDB says he portrayed a 5-year-old in the TV movie, not that he himself was five at the time. Mr. Rumph’s age at the time of filming is still unkown.
Okay, so maybe he was played by a diminutive 8-year-old or some such older kid. When do we get to the age where this scene would have been okay?
I don’t know for sure, but I know it’s a long way from 5 or 8 years old.
– Greg, Atlanta