according to this, the kiss was real, but to echo others: it’s make believe. it may or may not be illegal, but it doesn’t matter if no one sues.
I thought joke threads weren’t allowed in this forum?
If you’re going to start a thread about jokes, where else would you put it? 
If she was born in 1990 and it’s just barely 2006, why do you find it outrageous for me to say that she was 14 when the film was shot? Do you have any idea how long it takes to go from the day of filming to release in theatres? I do. 29 years as a paid camera operator is what I have on my side- trust me. The movie was NOT shot in November, 2005… she was 14.
So, first question: What is the age of consent in Virginia?
Second question: Regardless of whether or not her parents were present, was she placed in positions that are usually regarded as child porn? Sexually suggestive is enough to get one busted in many states, one need not bare one’s bosom. As for the young lady in American Beauty, granted- she may have not been 18 yet. Far cry from 14, to many people- and in many states and cultures.
It is disingenuous to try to throw mud at me reminding me starchly that " it’s make-believe, duh !". I have shot more “make-believe” scenes than just about anyone else who is a registered member of SDMB, if not anyone else who is a registered member of SDMB. Reminding me of make-believe is a waste of time. I get it. 
That does not matter - for surely any child pornographer can say, " Oh, she was just posing with me, we were playing make-believe, honest !"
Show me the difference between child porn and sucking the tongue of a 14 year old girl in a Hollywood movie. But, spare me the “duh, it’s make-believe” crap. Which make-believe scene that I’ve shot should I recount first? Childbirth, death, gunshots, explosions, car crashes, fires, fights, sleeping, and so on. All faked.
With adults. Not children. And if this should go off to G.D., that’s fine with me. However, I refuse to sit here and aw shucks this one. She was 14. Her parents were on set? They’re idiots.
If the OP’s interpretation of statutory rape laws will outlaw Anne Geddes photos, there might actually be some merit to his position.
Moderator interjects: Seems to me this about laws, not about art/entertainment. So, my choice is to move it to Great Debates or the Pit. And further seems to me that this is really more a Pit-worthy rant than any sort of Debate. So off it goes.
This question is depressing if it’s not a joke.
:dubious: You claim to have shot a lot of movies and don’t think any have used children in childbirth, death, gun shot, fighting, drug use or fire scenes? Criminy, I think Robocop 2 had most of those by itself.
I got back from seeing the movie maybe an hour ago. I actually sat with the thread open in front of me for about ten minutes wondering if I should reply. I decided that I should.
Regarding ‘love scenes’ - There are what you would call love scenes but nothing that any rational person would get up in arms about. None of them simulate any sort of act and they are all clothed (with the exception of a scene where they are swimming, but that isn’t really a love scene because they are right beside a group of the Naturals fishing). The kisses are not deep makeout kisses and Colin doesn’t up and grab her breasts or anything (not that I recall, anyhow). He might touch her hair or her arm or something like that.
It should also be noted that she has a second partner in the film as well so lets not pin this all on Colin Farrell.
The opinion that someone should be charged with rape is ridiculous.
A cunning rebuttal of an argument no one has made.
Short of actual intercourse, what “positions” are usually regarded as pornographic? I don’t think this is the standard used to determine if something is pornographic or not.
Cite?
And to many people, states, and cultures, it’s not a far cry. What’s your point?
It’s not remotely disingenous. Real child porn is enormously scarring to its victims. It also usually depicts actual sex acts. This movie, one would presume, does not depict actual sex acts, but only implies them, probably by using camera and editing tricks, and possibly a body double. Considering your vast experience behind the camera, you surely understand the difference. Do you think the young lady in the picture has been damaged by the experience? What is your evidence for this belief?
He sure can. And if the jury believes him, he might even get off. Good luck to the hypothetical perv in proving his case.
Well, for starters, they aren’t actually fucking. That’d be the big one.
So, you’re saying that children should appear in any films that feature any of the above? John Travolta did a movie (Face/Off) where his five year old son got killed by a sniper. Are you arguing that there’s something morally wrong with that? Should he, or the studio, or whoever, have been charged with child endangerment?
Why are they idiots? You’re making absolutely no sense. I figured originally that you were trying to argue that there was no legal difference between this film and child pornography, but now it seems you’re arguing that there’s no moral difference. Is that your position? That this girl is somehow being abused by appearing in these scenes?
That strikes me as a distinctly irrational position.
The film’s rating is PG-13. I find it hard to imagine that that a faked PG-13-level sex scene could ever rise to the level of child porn or statutory rape.
I think you’re being a little over-sensitive here Cartoonverse. This probably doesn’t even approach the kind faux-sex between Jeremy Irons and Dominique Swain in the recent remake of Lolita and I think she was only ~16 at the time it was filmed.
- Tamerlane
Well, regardless, those are all bad analogies.
There is nothing close to a law or cultural taboo against minors pretending to die, pretending to do drugs, etc etc. There is an issue with minors having sexual or sexually suggestive interaction with adults.
I don’t agree with the OP’s anger or conclusions necessarially, but it doesn’t seem to me that he’s off his rocker like so many are hinting at.
And, as far as Anne Geddes goes, I think the world would be a happer place if we never had to see any of her work again, YMMV 
(actually, I have to admit to being slightly weirded out by her work, in that it feels very… objectifying to very very little kids. Or, rather, that it implies and invokes a very objectifying attitude from adults… but that’s a horse for a different thread)
This has to be my favorite statement to date reminding some doofus that what they see in the movies is make believe.
For consent issues, it doesn’t really matter whether the minor is clearly ‘damaged’ or not, though. Remember that ‘child porn’ can also fall under the same grey areas that ‘statutory rape with a minor’ does.
In many tribal cultures 14 years old was well within early baby making woman territory. If you’re going to film this accurately using a 14 year old actress to make out with an actor is hardly out of the question, illegal, unethical, immoral or fattening.
If your main point is that it’s essentially “kiddie porn” you’re going to have to present a better case for this than you have so far. In fact your OP doesn’t seem to make much sense at all, esp. for someone who is a professional who often works in the movies.
It’s understandable if you have an emotional reaction to a 14 year old actress being paid to tongue wrestle, smooch and dry hump with another actor as part of historical role, but you really need to ask yourself if this is pornography. Most people would disagree with you re your notion that it is and the case you have presented for that conclusion is weak and disjoint to say the least.
Not to support the OP, but I think the arguments about movies depicting murder and such are not applicable. No one on a movie set actually engages in the act of shooting a real bullet at another living person. Therefore, it can not be argued that anything that has taken place is actually illegal. However, unless a body double is used, a child in this case will engage in what could be argued as something illegal.
Taken out of the context of performance, a “murderer” would be seen to hold up a plastic firearm, shoot it at no one and then pretend to react as if they had just shot someone. Taken out of the context of performance, two actors will indeed kiss, and will indeed fondle, and it will all be evident on unedited film.
That said, I of course don’t think there’s anything wrong with such a portrayal, since there is no evidence to support any intent or harm upon the minor.
<hijack> Isn’t she absolutely beautiful? Fourteen or not, she’s beautiful. Of course, that nas absolutely nothing to do with the discussion at hand </hijack>
Anyway, I don’t think there is much to the outrageous claim made by the OP regarding rape (won’t someone think of the children?).
This is not the first time a child has filmed sexual scenes (and from what I recall, the scenes weren’t “sexual”, more so romantic). I’ve seen the girl in interviews, she seems fine to me. In fact, she giggles and blushes just like any other 16 year old girl talking about how she got to OMIGAWD! Actually KISS Collin Farell! ('Cuz, he’s so dreamy, ya know).
Legally, this is true. However, the scenes obviously weren’t illegal, otherwise the studio wouldn’t be showing the evidence of their crimes in theaters across America, so Cartooniverse’s complaint seems to be more focused on the moral aspect of these scenes, which implies to me that he thinks the young woman was somehow abused or violated in their filming.
I don’t know what “positions” you’re thinking of, but if there’s nothing but some kissing between the two and she’s not shown in some suggestive way, then there’s just no way a child was endangered or sexually abused here.
This is what happens when you rant about a movie you haven’t seen based on a CNN story about it. Unless drm and I have a difference about the meaning of the words he uses, there’s no tongue-sucking, no simulated sex, no nudity, and nothing suggestive. So what’s the child porn here? How was she harmed or exploited?
In Interview With the Vampire, an 11 or 12 year old Kirsten Dunst actually did tounge-wrestle with Brad Pitt. Would the OP want to arrest Pitt for that as well?