Y’know, if we’re going to be screaming “Outrage!” at this movie, I think this thread misses the point.
I suspect that the people who should truly be up in arms are the ones who value actual history and deplore one more movie company spreading John Smith’s old fantasies for fun and profit to the disparagement of the actual person of the young woman we call Pocahontas.
It can’t be as bad as the Disney version.
This post has been rearranged by the rearranger!
JR since any conviction under any of those laws (as well as several others), require the person to be a registered sex offender, I would suggest to you that such registration is in mnd of the general population equivalent to a ‘rapist’. or that has been my experience ( nearly 30 years working w/offenders)
but it is an aside discussion, I won’t hijack further.
Apparently some people get off on balloons. Hearing that distinctive squeak. Watching people step on them, teasing them 'til they pop. The balloons that is.
somewhat.
Heh, if Linda (Evans?) who played Regan in The Exorcist said she wasn’t scarred for life after that, then I don’t think a 14 year old would after kissing a sex symbol.
Linda Evans (not in The Exorcist)
Linda Blair (in The Exorcist)
Whoa, whoa. What about the scene in The Untouchables where the little girl runs after the mobster with the suitcase bomb he left in the shop?
"Mister, Mister! You forgot yourBOOOOOOOOOM
That was a real little girl they blew up. She didn’t eat all her vegetables, so she had to be punished.
I think this thread does bring up some very interesting points, which so many of you seem to be missing in your rush to make a joke at Cartooniverse’s expense. Yes, actors are engaging in make-believe when they are acting, but they are still real people, engaging in real actions. When a script calls for an actor to ride a horse, chances are good that at some point, the actor will indeed be sitting on a horse, and may even need to develop some horse-riding skills.
I am sure that there is a very strict set of rules for what can be done by underage actors, with regard to sexual activity as well as any type of dangerous activity, just like there are rules regarding how long child actors can work in a day and how their schooling must still continue. To answer the OP, I would say that Colin Farell won’t be charged with anything because the set monitors would have prevented anything actionable. Cartooniverse, you have worked on many movie sets - you would know better than any of us how underage performers are monitored on set.
As for the issue of child pornography, I’m not sure what or who is deciding what is kiddie porn and what isn’t. From what I understand of child pornography laws, someone having pictures of young girls in short shorts could be construed as child pornography.
Now, to muddy the waters further, imagine a time when computer-generated images of children are indistinguishable from real kids on film. What situations can you put these CGI kids in?
Okay, so the op is way off base in this specific. But American Beauty was brought up, and I gotta tell ya, when I saw this I was uncomfortable with its appealing to a prurient interest with an underage girl, and self-rightously justifiying it as “art”. It wasn’t kiddie porn, but it was appealing to the same under-18 impulse under cover. Is it okay because “it’s pretend” and because we call it “artistic”?
No, it was OK because…
Thora Birch was like 17.436546756478 years old. Quibbling at that point over age of consent is just stupid.
Her parents were on set and consented to the whole thing.
All she did was take her top off. And with the window in the way it’s not like you got a “good” look anyway.
And here’s the most important part…
If things you saw on camera had actually happened, well…For one thing, Ron Eldard would be in jail for the rest of his life for any single one of a dozen heinous acts he perpetrated on young Jena Malone in Bastard out of Carolina.
For another: In The Door in the Floor, little Elle Fanning (four years old at the time of filming) “sees” Jeff Bridges’ penis, and then “sees” Kim Basinger and Jon Foster naked and having rear-entry sex.*
*No, she doesn’t. It looks that way on film, but that sure as shootin’ isn’t the way it was filmed. I don’t know them, but I’m reasonably sure her parents have not let her see the movie yet, either.
One would imagine that some sort of romance might be pretty essential to the plot of a movie about Pokey and John Smith.
Strictly speaking, no. By most historical accounts, their relationship was entirely platonic.
By now it’s become traditional to make it a love story, but I’m sure that an interesting film could be made without using that approach.
My husband and I went to see 3 movies tonight, one of them being The New World. Thanks to Cartooniverse’s insane OP, I spent more time scrutinizing Farrell and Kilcher’s touches and interactions than relaxing and enjoying this quiet, beautiful movie.
THEY DO NOT HAVE SEX. They do not even SIMULATE having sex.
THEY NEVER REALLY KISS. There are light kisses to the shoulder and forehead, and a slight lip brushing, but no actual kiss.
There is NO sexual touching whatsoever. He never touches her breast.
They hold hands. They touch each other’s arms. They look soulfully into each other’s eyes. They swim together (with other people present). They obviously have a connection, a bond. It’s never depicted as a sexual bond.
If Cartooniverse is going to get bent out of shape, he should have substituted Christian Bale’s name for Colin Farrell, since she DOES kiss Bale. Her character (never called Pocahontas, btw, just Princess or Rebecca) marries Bale’s character and has a child by him, though again, no sexual scenes are shown.
I’m appalled by the OP and the fact that people are putting forward opinions about this movie WITHOUT HAVING SEEN IT. Cartooniverse ought to be ashamed of himself. This is a breathtakingly wonderful movie, and Kilcher is astonishing. Cartooniverse’s filthy mind and insinuation has unfairly tainted the film.
This is the Pit? Good.
Fuck you Cartooniverse. Your dirty mind colored my first viewing of the film with a negative tint. Malick is one of my favorite directors and I only get a movie from him once in a blue moon. I’ve been waiting for this gorgeous movie for several years, and I hate that I read your post mere hours before I finally saw it.
Fuck you all to hell.
My college roommate went to high school with that girl.
How about using that particular character to represent a glottal stop?
Go tell a large Irishman.
I know eh? I came back from seeing the movie and was about to start a thread on the subject when I read a thread title that lead me to believe that Mr. Farrell was in some legal trouble. Then I read the thread, then got angry, then laughed.
This is such a ridiculous thread.
(I also thought it was wonderful and was also impressed with Kilcher - not to mention the cinematographer)
