From what I've read about this movie......this particular scene has nothing to do with the movie itself. The 'rape' happens and that's it. It is not discussed or revisited in any manner.

It almost seems that it is movie 'filler' to take up some time.

Originally posted by ferretman2
It almost seems that it is movie 'filler' to take up some time.

So, in essence, that would make the rape scene unnecessary?

Peace

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
I hate how Hollywood has been reduced to shock-jockery and constant political commentary. What happened to the entertainment?

Hollywood has been totally pathetic for many, many years already.
How did this movie get a licence for public viewing?

Honestly i completely support the idea of the film, the story is a seemingly good one. I just do not think the rape scene is needed to tell the story. Lets just think about it, what could this scene do for the film? If anyone wants to say it would help us realise the damage this kind of situation can do to a child, well i don't need the scene for that. The damage is obvious i don't need to be shown the actual act, even if it is fake.

That is my only real problem with this film, that scene is not needed and truthfully i am thinking it has been placed there to try and stir up this controversy. It's extra publicity afterall and maybe some of these producers have lost the idea of making a good film and now concentrate more on getting the film seen by using a shock tactic.

[edit on 25-1-2007 by ImaginaryReality1984]

You vote with your dollars. They're called dollar votes. This movie will tank in the end because it's going to suck. The end.

That is probably true ImaginaryReality....Look at the publicity the Sopranos received from showing a rape scene in one its episodes.. It's rather ironic that we fall for these schemes that these producers and such come up with, over and over and over..

The controversy over this is being stoked by religious fundamentalists looking to score political points by stoking public anger at bad old Hollywood, their favorite scapegoat (well after the gays).

While the controversy is portraying this as some kind of prurient romp about the sexual adventures of a young girl, from what I've read it is in fact a sad story about a girl who is neglected by her parents and the awful consequences that has for her. There is no nudity or graphic sex in the film, the rape scene in question is not graphic, just disturbing (as it should be).

Ironic, that these fundamentalists, looking to promote censorship (making the state in effect a substitute parent) are attempting to raise public ire about a film deling with the consequences of parental neglect.

Originally posted by golddragnet
Hollywood has been totally pathetic for many, many years already.
How did this movie get a licence for public viewing?

Indy films are as far from Hollywood as indy rock is from N'sync

And films, books, and such don't need a 'license' for public viewing, thank god. Imagine a world where you need to be licensed to create art.

Its called Acting!!!


Just let them work, she agreed to do it and im sure the parents said it was ok!

She was never raped, she just played it in the movie

No, big deal

move on!