Why hasn't Colin Farell been charged with rape?

The BBQ Pit
81

This CLEARLY is not a case of child pornography, was likely run past the moving ratings board and censors with a fine toothed comb times twenty-seven, and it has artistic merit.

If you cannot tell the difference of what the LEGAL definition of child pornography is, and others who are well versed in the legalities have already given it a pass, then why don’t you step back.

Like Winona Rider having to pretend in her “wedding” to Dennis Quaid in the Jerry Lee Lewis story - it’s a SIMULATION. It’s ACTING. There was no PENETRATION.

God. I get the seriousness of child pornography but do you not understand how knee-jerk reactions like this are threatening the very adult industry right now? For those of us who like a little adult entertainment, work with it, work with sexuality or sensualit - our LIVES are at stake here - Please, for the love of Pete, take a moment to THINK about what you’re willing to sacrifice over what was obviously a LEGAL shoot.

Inky
**Who is watching the 2257 hearings and Gonzales very, very, very carefully. Just you wait - we’ll all be back to Puritan hats in a year.

82

Well, since you’re wondering, the following is an edited excerpt from Graydon Carter’s “Editor’s Letter” titled Roman Holiday from the October 2005 edition of Vanity Fair (my sincerest apologies to the mods and admin of the SDMB if this excerpt violates any of their copyright agreements) (from here):

*"Now is as good a time as any to review why the man whose good name we were accused of besmirching and on whose reputation the jury had to place a value could not be in the courtroom that week. In early 1977, Polanski, then 43, had been hired to photograph some girls for a French fashion magazine. He was directed to one young girl, whom he met with her mother at their home in Woodland Hills, in Los Angeles. The girl was 13. She had a dog and a pet bird. “I was rather disappointed,” Polanski wrote in his autobiography. “[She] was about my own height, slim and quite graceful, with an unexpectedly husky voice for her age—a good-looking girl, but nothing sensational.”

A week after that first encounter, Polanski drove back to the girl’s house in his rented Mercedes, and the pair went for a walk in the hills so that he could take some photographs. According to the girl’s subsequent grand-jury testimony, he told her to take off her top, and he shot her breasts. A few weeks later Polanski turned up at the house in Woodland Hills …{snip } … Polanski poured her a glass of Cristal champagne from a bottle he had found in the fridge and refilled her glass from time to time. Polanski then led her outside to take pictures of her in a Jacuzzi. He produced a yellow vial, and they each took a part of a Quaalude. She said he urged her to remove more and more of her clothes until she was completely naked… {snip}… When he attempted to grope her, she said, she rushed out and went inside to dry off. Polanski followed her into a bedroom, kissed her, and began to perform oral sex on her. She said she asked him to stop several times, whereupon he began to have intercourse with her. When he discovered that she was not on the pill, Polanski, ever the gentleman, withdrew, and then proceeded to sodomize the 13-year-old. Afterward, as he drove her home, the girl recalled, Polanski said: “Don’t tell your mother about this, and don’t tell your boyfriend, either. This is our secret.” *"
Vanity Fair Oct '05 (pp 88-92)
All bolding mine.

According to this account, keeping in mind that IANAL, I’d say the difference is coercion, coercion involving drugs, sexual assault, sexual battery, statutory rape, and vaginal and anal rape. Not having seen the movie, I’m not sure if this is a profound enough difference to warrant attention by you, but I’d say it’s a fairly significant difference.

83

I don’t watch CNN usually, but here’s the review from cnn.com. The reviewer didn’t like it much, but he certainly doesn’t mention any love scenes.

So tell us this, Cartooniverse. If you’re such an expert at make believe, how much effort did it take you to dream up this bullshit OP of yours?

84

Um. You perhaps need to read the quote you used from my post. My point was not that at all. If you fake the death of a child, nobody watching the film ( well, nobody who is old enough to have attained a reasonable sophistication regarding movies ) will really think a child has died. The Untouchables example cited is a good one. In fact, if you watch the film frame by frame as the young girl approaches the doorway of the bar, and the cut is made, her body being blown up is not shown. Not in a single frame. Not in any way. It is a death created with an edit and some explosive and sound effects. Scary as hell anyway, but that isn’t even a depiction of a violent death.

The point of the OP, buried under the delighted pile-on subsequent to it, was that there is no faking an adult running their hands over a child’s body. An adult is over 18 ( anyone going to angrily state that Colin Farrell is 15, and therefore should have every right to fondle a 14 year old? No. Didn’t think so. ). A child at 14 is by all accounts- especially in the state where the film was shot- below consent age. Unlike the various acts of violents or action described above, a fondle is a fondle is a fondle. A mouth-kiss is a mouth-kiss. Unless IMDB is wrong, the young lady who was 14 is real. She is not a c.g. creation. She was an under-age person who was on set. One does not use a fake knife, stage blood, explosive squibs that do no harm or any other artifice to create a scene of sexual intimacy. One uses two live humans and a movie camera. Hence, my OP. ( and my use of the examples mis-understood above ).

The point of the OP is that what the producers of the film did was no different than producing non-explicit so-called “child porn”. You can pit that point of view all you want. It won’t change my point of view on the manipulation. Was Interview With A Vampire the same? Guin’s snarkiness aside, of course not. Ms. Dunst wasn’t making babies.

Not for nothing, but going to see a movie can hardly be ruined as an experience by something one reads on the Internet. At least, not for me. I can read exhaustively how a special effect was done. Does it ruin the movie? Not a bit. Heck, I knew that Gary Sinease has two legs, and that they went away digitally for Forest Gump. I was completely taken by the moment, and how he handled the requirements as an actor. Great bit of work. Discussing what someone thinks about a movie shouldn’t automatically taint it beyond viewability.

As for never visiting The Pit, so true. However I OP’d this thread and I cannot very well simply walk away from it now that it has been moved in here. That is insulting to anyone posting into it and not in the spirit of SDMB.

85

Never mind tribal cultures, in Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet, Juliet gets told that others of her age - 14 - are already mothers.

86

As much as knee jerk reactions leading to incredibly stupid pit OPs (leading to trainwrecks) are in the “SDMB spirit”, I really do think you should walk away from this one right now.

Next time you have an opinion on something, at least have read/seen it beforehand.

kthxbye.

:wally

87

Maybe one of our legal beagles will show up [Paging Bricker], but it’s my understandning that the laws against child pornography was made primarily to protect the kids thathave to pose for the trash, not to stop paedophiles wacking off.
It’s not illegal to own a written account of an adult having sex with a person below the AoC, and I doubt you’d be convicted for drawings of the same nature (depending on state, judge ASF).
Not having seen the movie, I can’t comment on the actual event. However, Cartooniverse does havea point. The law is there to protect the child, not protect the public from vile smut. Saying that the parents were there, and that there were peoplein the room would probably not be a valid defense. There are too many twisted parents that abuse their kids.
I wonder -
had the exact same scene been done in a warehouse in Orange County, withg the alcoholic, abusive dad pimping out his fourteen year old daughter, signing all release forms and the end result marketed as HighSchool Whore gone wild - do you think they could’ve got away with it?

Traci Lords movies and pics were never marketed as “under age” and yet, were forbidden. Having a 19 y.o. dress up in school uniform, pigtails and pretend to be 14, when she’s posing, is legal.

88

And when we start discussing tribal cultures and Shakespeare, those examples will be relevant.

89

That’s a very good point. And morally I don’t have a problem with this (particularly after reading Equipoise’s post about the actual substance of the film).

Woah, calm down a tad. As Miller and others have already pointed out (and probably should have been aparent to all of us from the get-go), legal eagles would have already given this the ok, so there’d be nothing legally wrong with it.

Also, having not seen the film, I was taking the OP at face value on comments such as:

And, if there had been love scenes (which there were not, as it’s been pointed out), then the question of what the difference is between ‘child porn’ and ‘non-explicit sex on film with children’ is an interesting one, and one that ought to be looked at and not just blown off as many early responders to the OP did.

Basically, I think none of my posts in this thread have been knee-jerk; they’ve been asking questions and playing a bit of a devil’s advocate to the quickly dismissive posts by many others, at the time when it still seemed like we were talking about “love scenes” that aparently don’t exist.

90

Sooooo…did you just skip all of the posts by people who actually saw the movie and said that the scenes you imagine don’t exist? What exactly are you ranting about? What you describe isn’t there. No fondling. No groping. A closed lip kiss. No simulated sex. No nudity. So? Who gives a fuck?

Try the decaf, seriously.

91

:confused:
So did you guys see the same movie? Or did Cartooniverse see the prono version filmed in the San Fernando Valley on a budget of $3,000?
You know like he wanted to see When Harry Met Sally and wound up renting When Harry Wet Sally
I. Don’t. Get. It.

92

So, she survived the explosion?

93

a better question would be “why weren’t Traci Lords former co stars prosecuted?” since there is no question that actual sexual behavior occured and that she was underaged. Her first films are (I believe) considered child porn now and not commercially available. IME, the fact the minor lied about their age and the other person didn’t realize it usually doesn’t prevent them from being convicted.

94

Unless I’m misreading, 'toonie hasn’t seen the movie, but rather read a vague article and jumped to conclusions.

I’d talk about this thread further, but the fact that a man with 30 years experience shooting movies can’t see the difference between art and child porn depresses me. I think I got stupider just reading 'toonie’s posts. Good day, sir.

95

What? You mean Hollywood made a movie that wasn’t historically accurate?

Gedoudahere!

96

Obviously, the issue of sex with minors is a fraught one, and child sexual exploitation is a topic that arouses controversy and elicits strong emotions. It’s inevitable that discussions of the topic will sometimes turn into slanging matches, and that some people occasionally let their emotions overshadow their reason.

But, having confronted Cartooniverse on similar questions before, i believe that he is in a whole different category. He appears literally unable to approach this issue with any semblance of rationality whatsoever. His way is the only way, and anyone who disagrees with him is an apologist for pedophiles.

97

Hm. I thought the point of the OP was to accuse Colin Farrell of child rape because you heard the phrase “love scenes” in a review on CNN.

There is an interesting question here – what’s legal when it comes to romantic scenes between adults and minors. Pity you hijacked you own OP by comparing Farrell’s behavior to Roman Polanski, accusing him of sexual assault, and calling the film kiddie porn. All based on hearsay and your own fevered extrapolations.

98

I suppose it’s entirely possible that she succumbed to her wounds since I lived with that guy in 1998.

99

Vladimir Nabokov said he wanted the part of Lolita played by “a dwarfess,” because he was appalled at the idea of an actual child even pretending to be raped.

100

Why hasn’t Q’Orianka’s doctor been charged with rape? He’s no doubt “fondled” more of her naked body than her co-stars have. If she has an OB-GYN, he’s done a lot more than that.

Yes, I know medical treatment is not the same as a “mere” movie. But I’m not talking about the reasons. I’m just noting that, no, every touching of a child’s body (or anyones) is the same. And if we can recognizes that a medical exam is not an assault, we can see the same thing in an acting job. Context DOES matter.

And of course a doctor can violate his patients, and so can an actor with an underage girl…but in most cases that’s not what’s happening.

Of course most medical exams are not filmed, but I’m talking about the assault part not the porn part. As to the porn part, I’m sure there are a lot of things they can’t show. And don’t.