Hollywood's bad influence runs deep

No one has ever claimed that Hollywood is a catalyst for morality. There have been bright spots throughout the movie industry’s long and storied history, but even in the so-called ‘golden years’ of film, decadence reigned. (Thomas Doherty has written an interesting book on the subject, entitled ‘Pre-Code Hollywood: Sex, Immorality, and Insurrection in American Cinema, 1930-1934.’)

If anything, the morality of films has gotten worse in the past few decades (and certainly since the 30s), but I don’t think anyone could have predicted the sudden flow of alarming news stories concerning current acting roles for Hollywood stars.

I’m thinking of two people in particular. Dakota Fanning and Daniel Radcliffe. They are 12 and (barely) 17, respectively. Both these young phenoms are without-a-doubt two of the most popular child actors since Shirley Temple or Ron Howard, with films that have grossed billions worldwide. But those cute black and white faces of yester-year never turned to pornography and excessive violence to retain their fame. Apparently Fanning and Radcliffe feel that’s what’s necessary to grow their renown and add to their legacy.

At least that’s what Dakota Fanning’s mother and agent implied when the news broke that just-turned-12-Dakotta (fresh off ‘Dreamer’ and ‘War of the Worlds’) was going to be "raped in one explicit scene and to appear naked or clad only in 'underpants' in several other horrifying moments (the Daily Mail reported)" of her new movie “Hounddog.” Fanning’s mother Joy, and agent Cindy Osbrink, are reportedly very excited about the movie and rape scenes in terms of their garnering some serious Oscar attention (and maybe even the statuette for little Dakotta). The movie’s Production Coordinator insists that the rape scene is only a “minute” out of the entire running time, and is shot “above the shoulders” so as to focus on Dakota’s facial expressions to tell the story . . .

I’m sorry; is that supposed to make me feel better about the scene? A 12-year-old portrays a NINE-year-old rape victim in a series of live action shots, and we’re supposed to accept that in any context?!? This is an appalling career move for a little girl who’s been nothing but brilliantly sweet and charismatic in every role she’s touched so far. Understandably, the project almost went under when they couldn’t find enough financiers to fund the 5 million dollar film. (Un)fortunately(??) for them, the company behind “Hounddog” eventually located some perve—er—professionals willing to back the movie, and it’s on schedule for a December theatrical release.

Daniel Radcliffe has never been the actor that Dakota Fanning is. He’s Harry Potter, so everyone knows him, but—seriously—whoever played that role (as long as he had glasses) was going to become famous. The Harry Potter franchise is too indomitable to be overturned by an unqualified actor. Still, the kid’s worth ₤23 million with perhaps the most recognizable face in the world.

Perhaps because he’s tired of only being known as Harry Potter and wants to carve a new niche, or perhaps he’s just frustrated that he hasn’t been in a single movie outside of Harry Potter since 2001. (He’s also filming a low-budget film “December Boys” out later this year.) Whatever the reasons, they surely shouldn’t have been enough to persuade Daniel to take on the lead role of the (in)famous play: “Equus” by Peter Shaffer. He will portray a “psychologically disturbed” stable boy named Alan Strang who has a “erotic relationship” with his horses. The twisted story includes his sessions with a psychiatrist (which reveal he’s sadistically blinded six of his horses), and requires him to strip on-stage, ride a horse nude, and simulate having an orgasm.

The last time we’ve had young star(let)s taking on such controversial roles, the kids’ acting career haven’t exactly skyrocketed (they haven’t tanked, though, either). Brooke Shields and Christopher Atkins (of “Blue Lagoon”) were ‘reduced’ to TV roles and minor film appearances. The stark violence and child molestation of 2004’s “The Butterfly Effect” didn’t help that film, any, either.

I’m not blaming the decisions of these youngsters (I can say that about a 12 and 17 year old, I think) entirely on Hollywood. But one has to wonder what the constant immoral presence of the industry has done to these kids. Early buzz about “War of the Worlds” speculated that Fanning might get an Oscar nomination for her role. That panned out, so she turns to . . . “Hounddog” instead. Daniel Radcliffe—I don’t even know why he’s taking on this role; his agent claims it’s a sign of his maturing acting, bla, bla, bla—but “Equus” is certainly not going to surround him with the buzz that Haley Joel Osment created for himself with “The Sixth Sense.”

I do question where the parents are in all of this. They have a duty to protect their children, not expose them for all the world to see! Dakota and Daniel already have enough money to last a lifetime, and an Oscar is, after all, just an Oscar. And Dakota has (presumably) years more to go after one of those (she’ll probably get one, too).

In the end, this is just another sign of what Hollywood’s influence can do to those in its ilk. It’s sad, but it’s really not a major surprise (when you think about it) that two kids with successful careers in Hollywood are taking on these depraved roles, just for the sake of ‘shaking things up’ or ‘proving one’s acting maturation.’

But it is sad.