Children rated R

No child should be allowed to perform in or in any way be associated with a motion picture that he or she cannot view themselves... and alone. To put a child in an R-rated movie (or worse!) or even a PG17 potboiler should be a federal crime and vigorously enforced. "Hounddog" should have proven to everyone that Hollywood places no moral limits on what use it will make of child actors or expose other children to.

Thats some bull**** right there, if a chil is mature enough to handel the subject matter they are given, then bloody well let them be in it, other wise movies will be incredibly dull.

The children in the movie "The Woodsman" for example, if they hadn't been in it, then the movie simply would have sucked, or never have been made.

The little Girl in Alien.

The boy from that movie where he kiss's nicole kidman.

The teen, and child from 28 days/weeks later.

Just about every mature rated movie dakota fanning has been in.

Heck, when she was only 17 years old the girl from Pirates of the caribean ((I forget her name right now)) Exposed her breasts in a movie ,and she came out fine, nobody got mental anguish from it, or died, besides people who get scared by every moveing thing, thats you Steven.

That "girl" from POTC is Keira Knightley, "City". Now, just tell me of a film where it was necessary to have children in it or how many films even NEED to be R-rated in the first place? The fact that most of them "sucked" anyway notwithstanding, what about what it does to those children AS children to be involved in such things? Think about them, "Sunless", and not about whether some already rotten movie would be "dull" without exploited and emotionally damaged children as a part of their vileness. Children matter a lot more than your "entertainment".

Steven Mark Pilling wrote:

No child should be allowed to perform in or in any way be associated with a motion picture that he or she cannot view themselves... and alone. To put a child in an R-rated movie (or worse!) or even a PG17 potboiler should be a federal crime and vigorously enforced. "Hounddog" should have proven to everyone that Hollywood places no moral limits on what use it will make of child actors or expose other children to.

Hi, Steven. I think you meant "NC-17" when you typed "PG-17". Just a thought.

Dear David: Actually, I meant PG13. All a PG13 movie is (these days) is an R-rated film that can be easily edited down to a PG for television. That's about what it amounts to! NC17 is, of course, the new term for X-rated. Leave it to Hollywood to "redefine" the concept!

To Steven: Actually, "NC-17" is not meant to necessarily mean a pornographic film, the way "X" has been assumed to be. A film can be rated "NC-17" for a number of reasons...violence, excessive gore, extreme language and, of course, sexual content that pushes the "R"-rating. In fact, according to www.wikipedia.org ; both "The Passion of the Christ" and "Saving Private Ryan" were originally going to be released as "NC-17" for their depictions of graphic violence. I've seen both films and I can attest to their extreme content. However, both were re-rated "R" before they were released to theaters. Neither of those films have any sex, just loads of violence and, in "Saving Private Ryan"s case, language.

As for "PG-13" movies, they are far tamer compared to "R" and "NC-17" rated movies. Yeah, television version films are usually not as good because they edit some of the harsher stuff from original films. That leads me to think that if "Hounddog" is shown on tv, the offensive scenes you mentioned in the other topic about Dakota Fanning's rape scene will likely be edited out for sure.

Dear David:

All that it does is illustrate the way that Hollywood continues to manipulate the ratings system to increase acceptance of its ever-more tawdry fare. Getting rid of the X-rating in favor of NC17 (and thereby allowing them to group non-pornographic films in with the real thing) is a case in point. So is the continual erosion of standards with the rest of the ratings. For example, what was rated X when the ratings system began comes in as a weak R today. Likewise; PG13 films often contain superfluous scenes of sex and violence that once would have garnered a hard R. As the ratings have become ever more degraded and deceptive, so has any value they might have ever had.

In his letter to me, Empire Film Group's chief of distribution assured me that most of the "offensive" scenes had been deleted from the new edit of the film... including virtually all of the infamous "rape" scene. What that leaves in the film, if true, cannot be much! Check out my site at "xanga.com/STEVENPILL" ; under my column "An Open Letter" (that's the reprinted message I sent to EFG) and the responses.

hey what you doin well im bored and i am hir typing yall diring class so type back ok.well later

hey yall well i dont know what to talk about so later.

To Steven: I do agree about how many PG-13 rated films are becoming increasingly more violent and seem more like R rated movies of the 1980s and early 1990s. Take "The Perfect Storm" (2000) and "Anaconda" (1997) for example. Both are rated PG-13 and both contain strong violence and f-words (one or two in each film). So, you're right about PG-13 containg material that would once earn an R rating.

As for Dakota's film "Hounddog", if that letter you received is final, then there's no point in the debate about the infamous scene since it's deleted. I guess I'll never understand unless a "Director's Cut" version is released eventually.

Dear David: I've been thinking a lot on that "director's cut" (as you put it) possibility. If the legal climate relaxes even more- as "Hounddog's" very existance has helped make possible- then you have to wonder. It can't be dismissed that many of the original scenes may still exist; secreted away somewhere until such time as it may be safe to market them. If so, then that's just another sword hanging over Dakota's head. These things tend not to go away... as Vanessa Hudgens found out and Miley Cyrus is in the process of learning!

Dear Lauren and Daniela: Welcome to the site. From Evadale, huh? How'd the Rebels do this football season?

To Steven: Well, unless I see it for myself, I can't say one way or the other about "Hounddog".

As for Vanessa Hudgens and Miley Cyrus...I'm kinda glad you brought them up here because there's something I have to tell you, Steven. Vanessa Hudgens, as you may recall, had a photo "scandal" in 2007. I say "scandal" in quotes because I do not believe the photos were anything bad. To me, being the nudist I am, her nude photo was nothing more than a nudist photo of her in my opinion. Now, clearly, people have different opinions about such things like this, but people who call the nude photo "scandalous", wrong, erotic, pornographic, or anything else of that nature are either jealous because they wish they could be her...or they haven't experienced nudism as I have...well, sort of.

continued on next post---

To Steven (continued): I've learned to accept natural nudity for what it really is and not what the media brainwashes people into thinking it is. That's why I don't consider Vanessa's photo to be anything more than a nudist photo.

Now...Miley Cyrus...she's not even nude and people have bashed her like crazy. Sure, she's taken some private photos, but first of all, they were meant to be private. Miley's not dumb. She wouldn't tell people to post her private photos. They somehow got leaked, but it's not her fault. Anyway, the photos are not bad, either. Her Vanity Fair photos are nothing you can't see at a beach...and how many of her fans read that magazine anyway? I'm not mad or fuming. I'm just trying to explain and hopefully clear up a little misunderstanding about those two that have the "scandals".

Dear David:

Once again, we're on the subject of private nudity as a lifestyle vs. the public sort. The difference is in the message. Vanessa Hudgens, while still a minor, posed for a nude picture aimed at her boyfriend. What was the message there? That it would almost inevitably end up on the internet is something she must have known.

Miley Cyrus posed for a semi-nude photo that was clearly intended to be sexually provocative. That she got hustled into doing it the minute Daddy was off the set... that I can readily believe. Vanity Fair has a long history of doing things like that. After all, they did it to Dakota!

Miley was exploited... but her father should have known better than to take her there in the first place. Like all fathers of child stars, female ones in particular, his responsibility is inherently great. Not only for his daughter's sake, either, but for those of the millions of children who love her and now have to cope with this tarnishing of her good name. In that respect, it's Dakota all over again.

To Steven: First of all, Vanessa had no idea someone was going to leak her private photos. That's why they were meant to be private and only for her boyfriend. That's why the photos leaked embarrassed her. Now...here's something that might be interesting. Vanessa said she told her mom about the photos and guess what her mom said. "Well, everyone can be naked if they want to." Hmmm...where have I heard that before? Oh, yeah...ME! Not word for word, obviously, but it seems to sound like something a nudist or at least a person who accepts nudity would say.

Now...as for Miley Cyrus, her photos were not intended to be sexually provocative. Annie Leb-whatever-her-last-name-is said they were beautiful and natural. It's not her job to control the minds of perverts if they view natural photos as slutty, is it? That's why I keep mentioning nudism. Granted, I don't know Vanity Fair, but I've seen the photos and I don't see anything sexual in them. Someone on another post said the photo with the sheet covering her looked like she was coming out of the shower, which I think I can draw the connection as such.

As for the photo with her and her dad, I fail to see any kind of sexuality with it. I find it nice that some families still have dads and daughters that have close relationships. I wish more families could be like that. I didn't know Dakota posed for Vanity Fair. When did she do that? Your comment about "they did it to Dakota" implies Vanity Fair was involved with Dakota, but I never saw any photos with her in it.

continued on next post ---

To Steven (continued): I just need to know if your comment about Dakota implies that she posed for Vanity Fair. If not, tell me what I'm misreading. Anyhow, I still stand by my comments and neither Miley nor Vanessa did anything wrong. It's like I said before, if people view innocent photos as sexual, then they haven't experienced nudism. But, maybe I should add that they may have perverted minds to think they see something sexual in innocent photos such as Vanity Fair or Vanessa Hudgens' nude photo. I do not imply any offense and if I have offended you, Steven, then I apologize. It's just that I'm trying to make a point that nobody seems to understand.

Dear David:

With all due respect, you're making excuses for these people without quite realizing it.

1. When you're a celebrity, a minor and enjoy a large following of other minors... and when you proceed to make nude photos of yourself (for anyone!)... and say you expected they'd remain private... you're either a complete fool or a liar. The very fact that Vanessa Hudgens posed naked in the first place reveals a big character flaw on her part. She's revealed more of that flaw since! And that her mother (apparently) approved of it demonstrates from where that flaw derived. The corruption and/or inattentiveness of child stars is the ultimate key to their moral downfall. Those parents have a HUGE responsibility that few seem able to cope with... or even recognize.

2. Miley Cyrus' photo WAS intended to be provacative. That's what Annie Leibovitz does for a living and Vanity Fair for circulation. Every issue is filled with subtle (and very unsubtle!) sexuality. Even the ads reflect it. You've got to know these people and their track records to understand what motivates them.

continued

continued

3. Look for Dakota's appearance in the March 2006 "Special Edition"... one of their most notorious ever! At least, the kid had some clothes on. Even Vanity Fair can't flount the law to that degree! But, as with Miley, the bigger story is that of the message conveyed by the posing and the overall context of the magazine. That message, starting with the nude foldout on the cover of the magazine (!), was pretty stark.

And no, David, you haven't offended me. I'm just trying to point out that nudity and implied nudity with children in a public forum is not (and cannot be) asexual in nature. It is wrong and dangerous to children besides. And, as it involves celebrity kids, that message thereby carries over to the kids who follow them... and the adults who prey on them all.

To Steven: I believe that Vanessa's mother approved of her daughter's decision probably because she trusts her daughter to be mature about the whole thing...and come to think of it, I believe she was. What celebrities do in private should not be any of our business, I mean people in general. I mentioned on an article about Vanessa on topix.com about if nothing is private with celebrities, then why aren't there photos of Vanessa on the toilet or showering or getting changed or whatever else that's supposedly private? Surely, paparazzi must want private photos leaked publicly, right? For the record, I will NEVER become a paparazzi and, if I am ever offered the job, I will turn it down.

continued on next post ---