Child Actress Acting in Intimate Scenes - OK or Not?

cookietime on 06/06/2019 - 15:54

I have concerns about a movie showing at Sydney Film Festival. The movie includes intimate scenes between a 13-year-old actress and her older co-stars without using a body double. In those scenes, it is obvious that the male actor touched the girl. There are also scenes of her kissing (on the lips I think) another actress.

NSW Crimes Act 1900 - SECT 66DB says “Any person who intentionally: (a) sexually touches a child who is of or above the age of 10 years and under the age of 16 years is guilty of an offence”. I don’t think doing this act in a movie is an exemption.

This link says

Separate offences prohibit the production, dissemination or possession of child abuse material which is defined as material that depicts or describes a child: engaged in sexual activity, or in a sexual context

and

It is not a defence to point to consent either by the child or the child's parents. Indeed, a parent who permits a child to be used for pornographic purposes is also guilty of an offence.

I submitted a complaint to the Classification Board but they would take a while to respond while the movie has been and will be shown in Sydney and Newcastle in June.

What do you think? Would you watch the movie knowing that it includes a child acting in sexual scenes?

Entertainment

Comments

  • pingualien on 06/06/2019 - 16:03
    +6

    yikes

  • GG57 on 06/06/2019 - 16:16

    Organise a placard-carrying protest at the front of the cinema.
    People can then decide if they want to view it or not.

    My understanding is that even film festivals have to obtain classification ratings for all films. What is this film rated?

    • cookietime on 06/06/2019 - 16:38

      15+

      However I'm unsure whether they had to disclose the information regarding the child directly acting in sexual scenes when applying for a classification rating.

      I'm not in a position to organise a protest (exams next week), but that's a great idea.

    • sleepy le beef on 06/06/2019 - 18:36
      +3

      Down with this sort of thing

      • Mosher on 06/06/2019 - 19:58
        +1

        Ha! father ted

  • Seedy seed on 06/06/2019 - 16:20
    +3

    Wtf? Which movie festival showed that??? 🤔 What were they thinking..

  • iforgotmysocks on 06/06/2019 - 16:22
    +24

    Surely a worthy test of the moral compass of Australia's foremost bargains community.

    Did you get a free ticket?

    • Seedy seed on 06/06/2019 - 16:23

      Rofl thats gold.

    • cookietime on 06/06/2019 - 16:35
      +1

      Haha, yes they did offer me a free ticket, which I declined.

      There you go, if you want to get a free ticket, send a complaint to them via their Facebook page :P

  • pegaxs on 06/06/2019 - 16:23
    +1

    This is all reminiscent of the Ken Park movie furore from almost 20 years ago…

    • spackbace on 06/06/2019 - 16:32
      +4

      If the year starts with "20", please don't refer to it as nearly 20 years ago :o

      • humdingaling on 06/06/2019 - 16:42

        2002….almost

      • pegaxs on 06/06/2019 - 17:41
        +5

        There are kids that were born in 2001 who are old enough to drink and drive cars… my mates daughter was born in 2000 and is currently at uni… it’s freaking me out!

      • ozbjunkie on 08/06/2019 - 00:56
        +1

        But what is the phrase "nearly 20 years ago" meant for then?

        Certainly not referring to things that happened in mid 1999…

        Don't worry I feel old too.

    • ChocolateTown on 08/06/2019 - 16:39

      Wow I hadn’t realised that was a Larry Clark movie. I just watched the trailer and holy shit it’s set in Visalia. In 2002 I went to Visalia for two weeks with my bestie who went there to meet a dude online. Meth was EVERYWHERE but yet we thought nothing of wandering the streets at 3am to the nearest gas station to buy beer (even tho we were underaged). We then rode the night bus to Vegas to spend a week there… good times.

  • Bargaitbuggs on 06/06/2019 - 16:28
    +2

    Op sounds not 100 percent sure.
    If anything is intimate with sexual areas being touched in any way of the minor is a disgrace
    Maybe try calling docs?

    • cookietime on 06/06/2019 - 16:43

      I'm 100% sure where my stand is on this topic. I just want to know what other people think :)

      I'm not sure what docs can do in this case because the movie was not shot in Australia.

    • spackbace on 06/06/2019 - 16:33
      +2

      Yet another moral panic about sex by a prude intent on controlling other people.

      13 years old, you're going to say that's ok to show them fooling around?

        • spackbace on 06/06/2019 - 16:36
          +6

          Right so at what age aren't you ok with it? We've determined 13yos playing sexually is fine, how about 7yo? 2yo? Where's your line?

          • SydStrand on 06/06/2019 - 18:53
            +1

            @spackbace: I don't like sliding scales, as they can be used to vilify almost anything. The war on drugs is based on the outdated and since discredited idea that once people get a taste of soft drugs, they'll inevitably turn into heroin junkies. As a society, we're capable of drawing lines in social issues without sliding off into oblivion.

            What the OP is talking about, is the depiction of sexuality. You can't pretend that many 13 year olds aren't already sexually active, or that taboo subjects don't exist. Otherwise, ready an old-fashioned book fire for Flowers in the Attic, Lolita, Call Me By Your Name, A Game of Thrones, etc., and maybe chuck in your DVD of Taxi Driver and anything featuring Woody Allen.

            So long as it's understood as a work of art that doesn't celebrate predatory behaviour, and actors aren't exploited, then it shouldn't matter.

            • spackbace on 06/06/2019 - 19:02
              +1

              @SydStrand: Would you not typically form a line at the age of consent, or similar?

              The reason for my questioning is Diji is so adamant that 13yo is fine, but what isn't fine? 13yo is barely pubescent, so while some kids that age might be doing things, is it really the norm? Is it really ok?

              For someone to come out and say 13yo is fine, that we're a nanny country for objecting that age being sexualised on-screen, then surely that same person can tell me what age isn't ok to show.

              I'd rather get answers to my questions from the person I'm aiming them at, not have someone on the sidelines chip in their $0.02 just because Diji is afraid to actually answer that question. It's a pretty simple one.

              • SydStrand on 06/06/2019 - 19:27
                +2

                @spackbace:

                Would you not typically form a line at the age of consent, or similar?

                We already have an age of consent. What we don't have, is reasonable drug laws that reflect public opinion. That's the problem with broad stroke policies based on supposed sliding scales.

                so while some kids that age might be doing things, is it really the norm? Is it really ok?

                It was the norm not all that long ago. IMO, I wouldn't want it any younger, but kids start turning into hormone factories at that age. Pretending it doesn't happen is denying biology and our alarming teen pregnancy stats.

                For someone to come out and say 13yo is fine, that we're a nanny country for objecting that age being sexualised on-screen

                There's a huge difference between sexualising something, and portraying sexuality

                I'd rather get answers to my questions from the person I'm aiming them at, not have someone on the sidelines chip in their $0.02 just because Diji is afraid to actually answer that question. It's a pretty simple one

                I don't exactly agree with them, but I don't like the moral dog-piling. Art doesn't have to conform to your sensibilities. It's a big tent; sometimes it offends. You can tolerate the existence of something that portrays taboo or unsavoury subjects without actually condoning it in the real world. Just because it uses an underage actor doesn't make it child porn.

      • [Deactivated] on 06/06/2019 - 20:41
        +1

        This is acting though and the movie is based on an auto-biographical script written and directed by a woman.

        • Aliastar on 06/06/2019 - 21:52
          +1

          So what if it was written and directed by a woman?

          • [Deactivated] on 06/06/2019 - 22:13
            +2

            @Aliastar: "Autobiographical" was the key word in my comment. Her great-grandmother was married off at the age of 14 to an older man who already had 2 wives. That marriage was consummated and she borne him a child. The writer/director is trying to tell that story. Her story. The story of child-brides in rural Vietnam in the 19th century.

            Is she gratuitously sexualising a 13 year old actress to sell more tickets? I don't know. I have not seen the movie. However critics have described it as a "tactful", "restrained", "delicate" and "unabashedly reticent" film.

            I'm happy to withold judgement until I've seen it. Although to be completely honest, it's not my type of movie. I prefer sci-fi to real life.

            • SydStrand on 07/06/2019 - 20:44

              @[Deactivated]: This. I probably won't see this film, but the moral panic is ridiculous. What's next, a blacklist of Miss Saigon?

              • [Deactivated] on 07/06/2019 - 20:46

                @SydStrand: Indeed!

  • djkelly69 on 06/06/2019 - 16:41

    Not sure why I am engaging, but…

    it is obvious that the male actor touched the girl.

    Any person who intentionally sexually touches a child

    (emphasis added)

    From memory, sexual touching relates only to breast/groin/butt regions, and even then can depend on context.

  • Cluster on 06/06/2019 - 16:56
    +1

    So what's the name of the movie? I don't see a reason to keep it secret.

    • beeawwb on 06/06/2019 - 17:05
      +1

      Assuming they're talking about The Third Wife.

      “The Third Wife” was released in Vietnam on May 17, but local media reported on May 20 that the country’s censorship board declared there will be no additional screenings of the film after 6 p.m. the same day.

      “Child endangerment” was cited as the main reason, a reference to how lead actress Nguyen Phuong Tra My was 13-years-old during filming and had to engage in mature content. The film’s co-producer, Tran Thi Bich Ngoc, in an interview with local media, said that My’s parents as well as siblings were present both on set and at festivals. My’s mother also approved Mayfair’s handling of the now-controversial scenes.

      Prior to the order, however, Mayfair said her post-production crew and her “had to do a lot” for the censorship board. Although a couple of shots had to be replaced and some angles tightened, the emotional through line is intact, she added.

      • cookietime on 06/06/2019 - 17:49

        Yep, this is the one.

        The movie was removed from cinemas in Vietnam. Vietnamese government officials said that the producers did not follow the approved script or something similar.

        There has been lots of discussion in Vietnam about this movie, especially in light of several cases of child sexual abuse in the country. In a recent case, a 7 years old girl was sexually harassed at a public place and the whole thing was recorded on CCTV. However the authority refused to press any charge against the offender, who was an ex-government official. Vietnamese public has been fighting really hard to bring justice to the victims. Showing this movie in Vietnam would be a slap in the face to the victims and their families.

  • tsunamisurfer on 06/06/2019 - 17:14
    +1

    No I don't find it appropriate. I would simply leave.

    But I wouldn't lodge a damn complaint ffs, don't you have better things to do?

  • mskeggs on 06/06/2019 - 17:24
    +9

    I don’t think you can say it is sexual if it is acting.
    They aren’t guilty of attempted murder if they pretend to stab somebody, and you aren’t guilty of rape if you pretend to rape somebody.
    Whether it is tasteful or not is a different question.
    If you are asking if it is morally ok, that depends on your morals, and likely the circumstances.

    • [Deactivated] on 06/06/2019 - 20:48

      you aren’t guilty of rape if you pretend to rape somebody

      The problem with blanket statements are that there are always exceptions. Off the top of my head :

      • rape scene in The last Tango

      • James Deen

      • jacross on 07/06/2019 - 11:36
        +3

        Raping someone with a camera rolling isn't pretending to rape someone. It's raping someone.

    • ozbjunkie on 08/06/2019 - 01:03

      I take your point, but the murder is simulated, nobody is really being hurt. In contrast, sexualised touching is "real" as long as skin to skin contact occurs.

      I don't think I'd get away with kissing a minor just because we were "pretending to kiss" - and that phrase sounds way sicker now that I see it in text.

  • Quantumcat on 06/06/2019 - 17:34
    +6

    Australian law isn't relevant for the acts if they didn't happen here. It would only be a problem if it counted as child pornography or not.

    • DogGunn on 06/06/2019 - 22:01
      +1

      They use Australian law as guidelines for classifications. If the distributors of the movie in Australia did not show or describe the scene described by the OP to the classification board, then they have reason under Australian law to both reclassify it and potentially refuse it classification.

      If it is refused classification it cannot be shown in public.

  • AustriaBargain on 06/06/2019 - 18:21

    maybe you just fell for some movie magic

  • [Deactivated] on 06/06/2019 - 20:17
    +2

    The fact is that censorship always defeats its own purpose, for it creates, in the end, the kind of society that is incapable of exercising real discretion.

  • [Deactivated] on 06/06/2019 - 20:20
    +2

    It's a movie, the touching isn't sexual - it's acting.

  • [Deactivated] on 06/06/2019 - 20:34

    OP, have you seen the movie?

  • The Wololo Wombat on 06/06/2019 - 20:40
    -2

    These kinds of festivals tend to attract the moral degenerates…. not surprising really

    • Aliastar on 06/06/2019 - 21:53

      Why would it attract them? It's only acting???

    • jackspratt on 07/06/2019 - 13:58
      +1

      How many have you attended, again…………

    • SydStrand on 07/06/2019 - 20:37
      +2

      Film festivals attract degenerates? Wow. clutch your pearls harder, Helen Lovejoy.

      • papachris on 07/06/2019 - 21:17

        "Won't somebody please think of the children"…

  • Cletus vandamme on 06/06/2019 - 20:47
    +5

    NOT OK. i mean where do you draw the line? anyone could say they are filming a "movie" and have underage children do sexual acts all in the guise of art. hire adult actors who look like children, im sure there are plenty out there.

  • chumlee on 06/06/2019 - 20:53
    +1

    Happens in Church by priests too

  • papachris on 06/06/2019 - 21:42
    -1

    It only becomes a problem if the young actress, or her parents, regard what happened as inappropriate. These days, legitimate film makers have all levels of chaperoning.

    it is obvious that the male actor touched the girl

    What do you mean by 'touched'? Nothing wrong with touching someone, regardless of the shock-horror political correctness of the day. If, on the other hand, it is touching of a sexual organ, then there is a problem…

    • OBEY YOUR MASTERS on 07/06/2019 - 07:45

      Why would touching of a sexual organ be a problem if it's just acting?

      • papachris on 07/06/2019 - 21:14

        It you don't draw a line, then you are giving a green light to child porn. Is that what you are doing?…

    • BigBirdy on 07/06/2019 - 10:03

      Are you suggesting anything is okay as long as the parents and child think it’s appropriate? As Op pointed out …

      It is not a defence to point to consent either by the child or the child's parents. Indeed, a parent who permits a child to be used for pornographic purposes is also guilty of an offence.

      Your definition re touching someone is similarly naive

      • papachris on 07/06/2019 - 21:13

        I'm obviously NOT suggesting that ANYTHING is okay. That would simply open things up to child porn and incest. There are obvious significant differences.

        Your comment about my definition of touching is rather bizarre to say the least…

    • [Deactivated] on 07/06/2019 - 13:10

      There is still yet more context required.

      For example If I touch a Child in an 'inappropriate place' briefly and by accident - for example when picking them up, catching them etc it is not a problem.

      If my child has hurt his penis and I am investigating the source of the pain, it is not inappropriate.

      There are hundreds of perfectly legitimate examples of touching sexual organs.

      • papachris on 07/06/2019 - 21:15

        We are not talking about accidental touching here. That is totally off point…

      • ozbjunkie on 08/06/2019 - 01:06

        Agreed, but neither of these are sexual touching.

        Lightly caressing someone's arm with your fingertips is sexual touching, and might run foul of the law if my reading of the above excerpts is accurate.

  • GG57 on 07/06/2019 - 08:55

    My understanding is that the Classification Board views all material (films, videos, magazines, games, etc.) as part of their classification assessment.

    http://www.classification.gov.au/About/Pages/Classification-…

    The process appears to be comprehensive, but there will always be (and has been previously) some material for which the allocated classification is subsequently disputed.

    Apart from that, Film Festivals are usually curated with a particular view; either a theme (e.g. Italian, Korean, etc.) or a subject matter. Some festivals intentionally challenge interested audiences with potentially controversial subject content etc.

    Whilst a particular scene in this particular film may not be to everyone's tastes, there are far worse things happening in the world. We can choose to become engaged or we can choose not to.

  • Eeples on 11/06/2019 - 22:38

    I think the OP ought to have seen the movie before writing to the censorship people.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join