Why hasn't Colin Farell been charged with rape?

The guy makes a movie. The young girl opposite him ( Playing Pocahontas to his John Smith ) is, according the CNN this morning, age 14 when the film was shot. There are love scenes.

Most places, if you put your hands on a girl age 14 no matter WHAT the “excuse”, you’re busted bigtime. Somehow this guy does love scenes, and everyone takes a pass on him? I’m wondering what the difference is between a love scene involving a 14 year old, and Roman Polanski’s 14 year old. ( or 13. Can’t remember which. )

Saying it’s just a movie scene is bullshit, IMHO. Saying her Mom was on set is also bullshit. She was at the time a seriously underage child doing love scenes with an adult.

Why is this not an issue? It is not relevant to me if she was or was not coerced into doing the aforementioned love scenes. So, it’s kiddie porn when a High School video teacher makes a “little project” where he makes out and perhaps fondles a 14 year old girl, but if it’s a Hollywood movie, it’s okay? “Fatty” Arbuckle must be spinning in is grave right about now. . :rolleyes:

And, for the legally picky, if he didn’t rape her, he surely might be charged with endangering the welfare of a minor, sexual battery, and so on. Sexual abuse and assault does not equal penetration, so whether or not he fucked her seems totally besides the point here.

It’s kiddie porn. Why has he not been charged?


It depends where the film was shot. The age of consent in some places might very well be 14. It also depends on what was shown in the movie.

If he didn’t have actual sex with her, it’s not rape. Not even statutory rape. It’s nonsense to say it is.

Nothing sexual is actually going on. They’re just pretending. Imagination is not a crime, nor is imagining something that is.

I have to assume there was no penetration or direct fondling of the genitals. I also have to assume the girl and her parents didn’t file any sort of complaint.

Here’s a question: is it illegal for a grown man to french kiss an underage girl or touch her breasts? I’m taking second base max.

Anyway - I’m with RealityChuck . It’s just pretend.

Just to add some clarity, the movie in question is The New World. The actress in question is Q’Orianka Kilcher and she was born Feb. 11, 1990. According to IMDB it was filmed in Virgina.

There’s also a chance that the aforementioned actress wasn’t even in those scenes - use of a body double and creative editing can go quite a way to make a convincing scene that never really happened.

Bullshit. Age of consent is 14 in plenty of places. Not Virginia, but who cares? They weren’t having sex. They weren’t even making out. They were pretending to make out, with parental supervision, and surrounded by tons of people.

OMG! Why hasn’t Arnie been charged with assault!?! Murder?!!?

If anyone could demonstrate that anything like that took place, then he surely could. But no rational person would ever think that.

This feels pretty GD-ish.

Haven’t seen the movie, so this will be a fairly uninformed opinion.

I’d ask first, “what are the differences between this scene, and a potential similar scene made privately?”

I’d also ask, “what sorts of actions count as sexual assault on minors?”

Assuming that any ‘sexual’ anything with minors counts as illegal, then I’d agree with Cartooniverse that at best there’s a huge issue with what the law states and what the law’s application is.

I think there’s a difference, because I think it’s generally assumed that actors in a movie are play-acting (i.e. not getting off on their work), while the teacher covertly filming his trysts with students is.

Frankly, I think this is a great example of how our general confusion about sex and sexuality leaves us with many types of bizarre double standards.

Dude, it’s called “make believe.” There are movies which portray adults hitting children. Should those actors be arrested as well?

I haven’t seen the movie yet, so I don’t know how graphic these love scenes are but if it’s just a little simulated kissing, without nudity or sexual contact then I find it hard to believe there’s anything illegal going on. Calling it “rape” is way over the top.

Do you even know for sure that they didn’t use a body double for those scenes?

Why is Farell to blame, and not the writer or director? It’s acting, and - have you seen it, because I haven’t - it’s probably not very egregious if not only did her parents approve, but the movie studio approved as well. They don’t want to get themselves busted for child molestation. You make it sound like Farell went out and groomed a 14-year-old to get her to take the part so he could run his hands over her.

I could be wrong, but it’s my understanding that any sexually exploitive pictures of minors, regardless of whether or not any actual sex/fondling is going on, is illegal. It’s not illegal to be naked, but it’s illegal to have a collection of pictures of naked children (if that’s a good example of what I’m trying to say).

Your Subject Line borders on slander, and your OP is ridiculous. Did you leave your keyboard ungarded and someone wrote this OP as a practical joke using the name Cartooniverse?

I’m seeing the movie tonight so I’ll see if there even IS a “love scene” in the movie.

Re: the teaher analogy:

I don’t think that works because a teacher is in a position of authority over his students. Colin Farrell was just a co-worker in a highly controlled, highly simulated and heavily supervised environment. What’s inappropriate between a teacher and a student is not necessarily inappropriate between that student and all other adults. Teachers (like some other adults like clergy, physicians, etc.) are held to a more careful standard because the nature of the relationship is inherently more condusive to exploitation and abuse.

I presume they used the usual well-known methods of movie trickery for any scenes that depicted Pocahontas doing anything that Q’Orianka Kilcher could not legally do. Duh.

Why hasn’t Sigourney Weaver been charged with nuking a city from orbit?

Normally, I’d take the side of the people saying it was just a movie…but really, I thought the money shot to the face was a little over the top.

What I wanna know is why wasn’t John Smith charged with rape?

:slight_smile: Just kidding…I her tribe probably didn’t keep birth records so the law would have an impossible time proving she was underage. :stuck_out_tongue:

<<ducks, runs for shelter>>

But it was the only way to be sure.

She was just following orders!

Oh noes! I hope they don’t find my Anne Geddes book.

The important line here is that such things are not child porn because they are artistic. Thora Birch was under 18 when she bared her breasts in American Beauty, and it was arguably a sexually suggestive scene. But that movie’s not child porn any more than the little sleeping naked babies on calendars are.

I haven’t seen the movie in question, but as to whether it’s child porn, I’ll know when I see it. :wink:

Now THAT’s illegal :smiley: