Why hasn't Colin Farell been charged with rape?

[Dijon_Warlock]

@Cartooniverse

Faking intimacy with a 14 year old child is abuse. Period. Find an 18 year old, dress her like a kid and fuck her till she weeps, go for it. But fer crissakes don’t try playing the " it’s just a drama, silly ! "

My God, my head hurts.

Cartooniverse: I’ve seen you on this board for years, read your posts, have no quibble with you. It’s obvious that for some reason, this subject bothers you. But you need to realize that just because you feel a certain way, it doesn’t obligate everyone else, nor does it prove you right (or wrong, for that matter). I am one of the more liberal members of the board when it comes to the subject of sex and minors, yet even I have found myself on the prudish side of an argument in this thread.

I was astonished that I was the only one who was bothered by the scenario presented, much as you must be now.

Still, while we’re each entitled to our own opinion (and I still think the motivation behind the episode in my thread was inappropriate), we ARE asking the opinion of other people. We can’t begrudge them their point of view.

So, that all being said, I would have to disagree with your statement:

Faking intimacy with a 14 year old child is abuse. Period.

First of all, Society Says: NO IT ISN’T, because: If “faking intimacy” is abuse, why isn’t “faking murder” abuse? Why not “faking dismemberment” abuse? Why not “faking abandonment” abuse? You can protest all you want, “Don’t tell me it’s fake!” but it IS* FAKE. The minors involved understand that, even if you don’t.

Maybe you have a particular beef with sexuality and children (many people do, maybe you do, maybe you don’t, no accusations here), but that doesn’t make it everyone else’s fault. The FACT is, “faking intimacy” ISN’T considered abuse anymore than faking anything else. It’s FAKE, for God’s sake! Sure, if it’s going to be an intense experience, there are people there to minimize the damage done to the minor (Linda Blair of the Exorcist had a psychological profile done on her before she was signed for the role (I believe), as well as Jodie Foster for “The Little Girl who Lived down the Lane” and others). There are also other classic roles played by minors that might fit into your “outrage profile:” Brooke Shields (12 years old) in “Pretty Baby”, Dominique Swain (15 years old) in the Adrian Lyne remake of “Lolita”.

In short, while I join you in your concern for the well-being of children in the media, I believe that in this case, your outrage is thorougly misplaced.

[Dijon_Warlock]

Just as an afterthought:

@Cartooniverse

Find an 18 year old, dress her like a kid and fuck her till she weeps, go for it.

Are you saying this ISN’T abuse?

Seriously?

[Cat_Whisperer]

I think we should abandon this trainwreck and go have a proper debate on the salient points of underage actors raised in this thread.

[Wolfian]

@Quint

Dude, you’ve had a lot of opportunities to be classy, but you’ve ignored them. Time to call you out. You are full of shit. 29 years as a paid camera operator? Who the fuck do you think you’re kidding? You are clearly a bozo who has managed to bullshit his way behind the camera once or twice in his life between stints attempting to be an EMT. Don’t fuckin’ pretend to be a camera operator when your experience is limited to trembling on the camera truck hoping the DP doesn’t fire you for being unable to figure out an eyeline. I’d doubt you’ve ever loaded a mag, let alone framed a scene. You’re accusing Terence Malik of making kiddie porn? You haven’t seen the movie! Please, before you embarrass yourself further, acknowledge those who have pointed out that the film has no intimate scenes, and that your initial comparison of Colin Farrel to Roman Polankski was an offense to victims of sexual abuse everywhere. Then, **SHUT THE FUCK UP! **

Damn. They should get you to deliver those anti-bootlegging commericals at the movies. I wouldn’t fuck with you.

[Walloon]

@Miller

Kissing a fourteen year-old girl is not, so far as I know, illegal in and of itself anywhere in the US.

Having a romantic relationship is not illegal either. Let’s not use euphamisms for sexual intercourse, if that’s what you mean.

[Cartooniverse]

@Quint

Dude, you’ve had a lot of opportunities to be classy, but you’ve ignored them. Time to call you out. You are full of shit. 29 years as a paid camera operator? Who the fuck do you think you’re kidding? You are clearly a bozo who has managed to bullshit his way behind the camera once or twice in his life between stints attempting to be an EMT. Don’t fuckin’ pretend to be a camera operator when your experience is limited to trembling on the camera truck hoping the DP doesn’t fire you for being unable to figure out an eyeline. I’d doubt you’ve ever loaded a mag, let alone framed a scene. You’re accusing Terence Malik of making kiddie porn? You haven’t seen the movie! Please, before you embarrass yourself further, acknowledge those who have pointed out that the film has no intimate scenes, and that your initial comparison of Colin Farrel to Roman Polankski was an offense to victims of sexual abuse everywhere. Then, **SHUT THE FUCK UP! **

An interesting bit of fluff, Quint. Nice to see that many years in the business hasn’t tempered your abusive personality. It’s kind of irrelevant if you think this. Luckily, while I don’t need to prove my experience either as a camera operator, D.P. or EMT to you, I will surely be entertained doing just that Shutting the fuck up when told I have not had the career I’ve had ( and continue to enjoy ) really isn’t going to happen. M’kay? Despite your protestations, let’s play a little game, shall we? Your statements imply very serious knowledge of the film industry, which you have plainly stated I cannot have. Any camera operator/D.P. worth their salt or Union Card will sail right through this.

1. First mag you loaded? Mine was an Arri S, then a 16Bl, followed by a refurbished Panavision PSR ( oh, wise one- tell me, what does PSR stand for? No Googling, my brilliant accusatory superior. Just shower us with your knowledge, which apparently I lack)

2. First lens you pulled focus on? Little pop quiz, champ. On a Zeiss Superspeed Prime, you will find what gear pitch used to pull focus? A) 14 B) 26 C) 32 D) 48 E) 96. ( This is a trick question. Let’s see if our little genius picks up on how, and why)

3. When mounting a Sony High Def camera onto the bridge plate for a teleprompter job, does one strain relieve the fiber optic cable on the left or right side of the camera body?

4. what was used to waterproof the Steadicam during the filming of “WaterWorld” ?

5. True of False: A camera assistant loading a camera with a fresh mag might, given certain circumstances, rub their finger lightly along their nose to pick up a bit of nose grease, then run it against a metal part within the camera body. True or false- and what metal part?

6. If you have a Tiffen Black Pro Mist #1 in the mattebox and you stop the lens down to f.16, what will happen to the image?

7. Define eyeline in a shot - not a shot in a horror film, but a normal dramatic scene.

8. How do you “winterize” a Panavision Camera? An Arriflex Camera? Is there a notable difference in techniques?

9. When the Operator hears the D.P. call out, “circle that one”, what does she/he refer to and whose job is it to do the circling?

10. What is the rosette knob on a hand-held camera configuration, and where would you find it? Would you find one, two or four?

As far as the EMT comment, as someone who stood AT Ground Zero on September 11th working hard to help strangers who were injured while you were munching Special K safe in your house and watching the event on your television, I am very comfortable saying that my experience in medical response far outstrips any snarky remark you might have to say to the contrary.

You’re calling me out? Quint, cut the shit. I’m calling you out. Answer all 10 questions with 100% accuracy, or I say you’re a fucking bitter angry slug of a grip who never go the chance to move up, and is taking it out on me. Stay on topic, and stop the pathetic attempts to slag both of my rather well-established careers.

Difference between you and me? I’m allowed on the camera truck. You owe me an apology for the entire attack I just quoted up there. You want to play in The Pit? Keep on track, and save the personal shit. Because this time, you were 100% wrong. Be a man. ( or woman, whichever you are ). Admit you were wholly wrong on both career attacks.

Dijon Warlock, my meaning in the statement you quoted just above was this: If someone old enough to legally consent, wants to participate in a sex scene, then go for it. No problem, she chose to do so, the others participating chose to do so. ( Real or “faked”). The part that reads, " till she’s sore " did, upon reflection, come out unduly harsh. I didn’t mean that an actress of any age should be abused or hurt. My point was that, given an age of majority as they say, she is free to do as she wishes on camera. A child is not.

[Raygun99]

@Cartooniverse

Admit you were wholly wrong on both career attacks.

Admit you were wholly wrong about Colin Farrell raping a girl on screen!

[mhendo]

@Cartooniverse

Stay on topic…

The hypocrisy is so thick you need a chainsaw to get through it.

Why won’t you respond to the dozens of posters who have actually seen the film, and who keep telling you that the types of scenes that you are imagining are simply not present in the movie?

[kidchameleon]

@Cartooniverse

Stay on topic
Keep on track

Hehe, this from the guy who keeps ignoring what went on in the film? :wally

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

So are you going to acknowledge that your OP was completely off-base and uninformed or are you going to try to sidetrack this thread into a pissing contest about who knows more photography jargon?

[Duke_of_Rat]

So what kind of camera did they use in “Pretty Baby”?

[Menocchio]

Where did Quint claim to be a cameraman himself?

And what would answering trivia that any idiot could answer after fifteen minutes of Google prove?

To be fair, though, I don’t think there’s any call to cast doubt on Cartooniverse’s profession. Only his intelligence and sincerity.

Cartooniverse is a liar and a moron.

Which, come to think of it, casts doubt on his ability to successfully be an EMT and a cameraman. Which was probably Quint’s logic in the first place.

[glee]

An interesting bit of fluff, Cartooniverse. Nice to see that many years in the business hasn’t tempered your abusive personality. It’s kind of irrelevant if you prove your experience either as a camera operator, D.P. or EMT.

Your statements imply very serious knowledge of the film ‘The New World’, which you plainly cannot have. Stay on topic, and stop the pathetic attempts to slag Colin Farrell’s well-established career.

Difference between you and me? I know I haven’t seen the fim.
You owe many posters an apology for the entire attack you started up there.
You want to play in The Pit? Keep on track, and save the personal shit. Because this time, you were 100% wrong. Be a man. Admit you were wholly wrong on this entire thread.

[Miller]

@Walter Windchill

It’s primarily illegal but it is in itself a form of sexual assault, and one that can harm or traumatize a child. “The intent to do something worse sooner or later,” is irrelevent.

I think it’s entirely relevant, because it’s necessary in establishing the context of the contact. The breast isn’t a “Mental Trauma” button that deactivates as soon as the person turns 18. Touching an underage girl’s breast is only potentially traumatizing under certain circumstances. Someone else brought up touching a girl’s breast as a necessary part of a medical exam. Obviously, that’s not traumatizing, because the context is non-sexual. The doctor isn’t touching the girl’s breast as part of an attempt to have sex with her. The situation is identical with the movie set: it looks like it’s part of an attempt to have sex with the girl, but it’s not: the actor knows its not, the girl knows its not, everyone around them on the set knows its not. This changes the context of the act entirely, making it non-sexual and, absent other factors, non-traumatizing.

@Cartooniverse

You kind of defeated your own argument here.

In the part of my post you quoted, I hadn’t made my argument yet.

I’m snipping your EMT stuff because it has no relevance. I’m not arguing about what constitutes consent, but what constitutes a potentially damaging sexual encounter.

She is incapable of consent. No argument there?

Oh, absolutely, an argument there. She’s incapable of consent from a purely legal point of view. As you mention at the end of your post, Germany (and, indeed, many other states in the US) has a much lower age of consent. If you took this girl from Virginia, and put her on a plane to Dusseldorf, does she suddenly become wiser and more self-aware when her plane enters German airspace? Age of consent laws are a necessary legal fiction to protect minors in general. It is not evidence of the maturity of any particular minor.

Virginia law is kinda firm on age of consent, and it ain’t 14. Her parents, I fervently hope, are not permitted to consent for her to perform sex scenes on her behalf. If in fact there is legal cite that says that a parent may consent for their underage daughter to act out sexual scenes with an over-21 adult, by all means, show me the cite. For I very much feel it cannot and does not exist.

There’s certainly no law that says a parent can consent on behalf of their children to have sex. But we’re not talking about sex, we’re talking about a sex-scene. The question then becomes, at what point does a sex-scene cross over into an actual sex act? Your position seems to be rather extreme: that if there is any remotely romantic contact between an adult and a minor, it’s sexual abuse. The law clearly does not back you up on this, as movies have gone much further than the entirely chaste depiction of the Pochaontas-John Smith relationship portrayed in this movie, and have done so without prosecution.

Telling us how many grips and PA’s ( they don’t use interns on film sets. They use production assistants. They use interns in broadcast television. ) were standing around is kinda meaningless. Those people are standing around a porn set too, so what’s the point of pointing out witnesses?

The point is, on the set of a non-porn movie, it’s understood by everyone involved that there’s not going to be any actual sex occuring in the course of the filming. If Colin Farel freaks out and trys to hump the girl, there are all sorts of people around to prevent it. A crowded set provides a measure of safety and security for the girl that ensures the contact between them remains non-sexual, even if it appears sexual once it’s been edited together and presented as a film.

If her parents felt they were on fine moral and legal ground pimping her out for love scenes with adults, then that makes it legal? And, more to the point, it makes it right for both Mr. Farrell and her parents?

What precise law do you think they are in violation of? More importantly, what moral principal do you think they’ve run afoul of? It’s not at all clear if you’re arguing that this movie should be illegal, or if it actually is illegal. If you think it’s the latter, why are you dicking around on this message board? Here’s the homepage for the FBI. I’m sure they’d love to hear from you.

Show me the law, folks. Show me case law that permits legal guardians or parents to consent on behalf of a minor dependant so that they must perform, either in reality or by dramatic presentation, sexual acts. OTOH, it’s not very hard to find objections to owning stories or drawings of child porn. Heck, SDMB has had threads about such cases.

I got a better idea. How about you show us the law you think they’ve violated, and we can explain to you why you’re wrong.

[Quint]

This thread is about you hysterically lobbing accusations of rape and kiddie porn around and then ignoring completely every response pointing out why those accusations are baseless and offensive. I posted a detailed response answering your question about the difference between Colin Farrel and Roman Polanski which you didn’t see. There have been about one hundred posts which you have apparently not seen. I am not a grip, camera operator or a DP. I do know that a camera operator has to be able to see to do his/her job. How do you explain your inability to see while being a working camera operator? I think Menocchio has it right. You are a liar and a moron. Sorry I cast aspersions on your career in a thread dedicated to you accusing people of rape and kiddie-porn making you :wally.

[Cat_Whisperer]

Okey dokey, here’s a thread about underage actors and sex scenes, without “The New World” muddying the waters.

[tdn]

@Quint

and then ignoring completely every response

I propose that we give him until page 5 to get the bloody obvious, then get this thread to drop.

[Wolfian]

:smack:

We’re morons! Not just for arguing with an obvious fool, but rather for missing the full implications of toonie’s reference to Germany. I move that we declare that a Godwin, thereby ending this conversation with a brick wall. Can I get a second?

[Larry_Mudd]

@Wolfian

We’re morons! Not just for arguing with an obvious fool, but rather for missing the full implications of toonie’s reference to Germany. I move that we declare that a Godwin, thereby ending this conversation with a brick wall. Can I get a second?

No, that’s just silly.

[Equipoise]

Damn, my other thread was closed before I had a chance to get back to it. I wish the Subject Line of this one could be changed. If I were Colin Farrell and saw that a thread with this subject line had lasted several pages, I’d be speed-dialing my lawyer to get them to have a chat with The Straight Dope.
It’s obvious to me by now that Cartooniverse has no interest in Q’Orianka Kilcher’s welfare. After all, it’d be all fine and dandy if she were being felt up in a movie in Germany. He has no interest in The New World as a movie, because he lives in NYC, and could easily go see it for himself. Cartooniverse inarguably has no interest in the truth of the matter since he’s taken great pains to ignore everyone in the thread who’s actually SEEN the movie and insist that there’s no such thing as a love scene between Farrell and Kilcher, and they don’t even really kiss.

My theories?

1. either Colin Farrell killed his brother and Cartooniverse holds grudges (I don’t hear him calling for Christain Bale to be arrested for his kissing Kilcher. Hell, their characters even had a baby, so Bale obviously raped Kilcher),

2. or he’s been hired by a competing studio to start or help foster a negative “whisper campaign” to lower the movie’s chances of being nominated for an Academy Award.

3. or he could just be physically and mentally incapable of admitting he’s wrong, and would rather look like an idiot than to do such a thing.

I haven’t been posting because I didn’t want to bump the thread, but what the hell. I kinda hope word does get back to Farrell. A man who’s willing to go to court to stop a sex tape that would only interest a few thousand people ought to be very upset that he’s practically being accused of raping an underage co-worker.