Interesting you reacted so bluntly to this part of the film, but not the part when these same young actors , on set, were "murdered", which I've found far more repulsive. Oh, that bizarro mixture of puritanism and messianic moral-high-horse liberalism was so keenly captured in Dogville! Reactions like this makes Lars von Trier all the more necessary.
They showed adults shaving sex while children were present. That's child porn to me. Sorry, this is more than just a clash of cultures (right vs left, conservative vs liberal). You guys are just out and out wrong to be doing this.
First, let's be honest here, this was not a sex scene, this was a scene where a woman is raped. There is a difference. Second, it was two actors acting a rape scene. This was not a case of two "actual" adults having "actual" sex in front of children. There is a difference. Third, would you have an equally strong reaction to child actors watching two adults being murdered in a violent way? If not, why not? Isn't that just as problematic for children to see? Or is violence ok, but the possibility of nakedness isn't? And who exactly are the "you guys" thay you are referring to. Granted, I think that questions of how we treat child actors and what is appropriate for them to deal with is important and should be considered from all points of view. However, classifying this film as "child porn" is reductionist at best.
Hmmm. Do you prefer having lots and lots of kids out there getting pregnant? Do you actually like seeing 14 year olds out there getting aids? And what about abortion? Do you actually prefer it to be happening, or would prefer it to be otherwise? The left wing attitude about exposing children to sex without much restraint is not working...and in this world with aids, showing kids sex and gloryifying sex, and having fun with sex out in the open for everyone to see is begging for all of our children to get in on it as well...and this means either teenage pregnancy (more than would otherwise occur) or teenage abortion (more than would otherwise occur).
Also, let's not forget the main thing:
FOR THE SAKE OF MONEY THEY HAD SEX IN FRONT OF CHILDREN. THEY MADE MILLIONS OF COPIES OF THE TAPES AND SOLD THEM TO EVERYONE THEY COULD SELL THEM TO.
THEY MADE MONEY OFF OF COMBINING SEX AND CHILDREN.
1) Please demonstrate that there are "lots of kids out there getting pregnant" because of movies. I would take time to research social work sites and other sources of information that demonstrate teen pregnancy has much more to do with socio-economic status combined with a lack of sexual education, but I have a feeling that you wouldn't bother reading it. If you would like to get into a conversation about the causes of teen pregnancy in this country, say so and we can find another forum for a detailed and nuanced conversation and not simply spouting rhetoric. 2) In what twisted world does the scene in Dogvile "glorify sex" and show them "having fun with sex?" Again, let's be clear, this is a scene that shows a brutal rape. This is NOT a scene where sex is gratuitous or "fun." 3) Please prove that they "had sex" in front of children instead of ACTING a scene of rape. 4) Dogville was an independent movie that was never made for money, but because Lars von Trier is a film director who is more concerned with making films than making money. 5) Do you really think that with the religious right breathing down everone's necks, with an increasingly theocratic government that if this movie "child porn" by any real measure, that I could buy it on Amazon? 6) And since you insist on shouting and simply repeating yourself... DOGVILLE IS A WORK OF FICTION AND THE SCENE YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT WAS ACTED AND NOT "REAL" AND IT WAS NOT A "SEX" SCENE IT WAS A SCENE IN WHICH A WOMAN WAS POWERLESS AND RAPED.
1) I wouldn't say it's just because of movies. I'd say it's due to being exposed to sex in general. Advertising, movies, TV, radio, video games, you name it. Add that on top of the unspoken social acceptance of immorality that you and the rest of Hollywood are pushing...added to everyone's own ample hormones...and yeah, you're asking for kids to get pregnant...with the ending result of it being either kids raising kids, kids having abortions or kids getting aids...or kids and their own kids getting aids. 2) Is it a brutal rape? It looked more like a man forcing himself on a woman with the woman gently and meekly trying to coax the man out of it. And, even if it wasn't fun for the woman, it was certainly enjoyable for the man. For the record, I haven't even begun to mention the scene where she spanks the boy in order to appease him sexually. In my opinion, that scene was just as bad and maybe even worse than the other. 3) Does it matter? How is a kid going to know the difference? 4) Sex and violence sells. Even if Mr. Trier's main goal is not money...the studio's was. And I guarantee that if the movie had been watered down to the version I personally would have preferred to see, the odds of the studio rejecting it would have been much greater. 5) The religious right? Breathing down people's necks? Hmmm... If they were, this movie would never have seen the light of day. I don't know if you've noticed, but thing's have been changing. The shift towards immorality is obvious. This shift, of course, has implications both economical as well as political. Stuff that used to be bad is now fine. Just because things have become much more agreeable to you and your cause doesn't mean that your cause is moral or just...it only means that there are more people around that agree with you than before. 6) The scene I'm talking wasn't acted. It was performed. There really was a naked man lying on top of a woman. He really was having sex with her in front of children. They really did video tape it and sell it to millions of people. And even if the actual act of penetration did not occur, who cares? How are the children watching going to know the difference, and even if they do, who cares? The ending effect of it is still the same. Kids learning about sex before they're ready. Kids learning about sex before they need to. And it's bad. What's worse though is that it was all done for money. It's inexcusable.
I won't get it, but what I'd like to see is for Amazon is to boot this unfortunate little movie off of its site. I doubt I'll get it, but it's what I'd like to see.
- - - - - - - - - -
No one's responded to my last comment for quite some time now, so I'm going to leave it at that. I'll let anyone else who feels so inclined have the last word. Here though is my last word:
People get used to things. The more you're exposed to a thing, the more you accept it (or get used to it anyway). As trends change slightly but continuously over the years, big changes can occur over time. A lot of you may personally not see why showing kids sex is a bad thing...you personally might not feel offended at the idea of it...but that doesn't mean it isn't bad. It just means you've slowly become acclimatized to the idea over the years. 50 years ago there would have been an amazing outcry from the public against this picture. Today though it appears to be just me.
So I would just leave you all with this one idea that I hope you would consider. It is possible to slowly and gradually become acclimatized to things that are very unhealthy. "How you feel" about a thing is not at all an accurate means of evaluating it.
In ancient Greece, adult men routinely and casually took prepubescent boys as lovers. The boys provided them with oral sex. That was 2,000 years ago. I guess it seems normal now because we've become acclimated to it. I honestly don't understand why someone like you would rent a movie like this; you're obviously not going to like it, and you'll obviously be offended by it. I really don't understand why it bothers you, either: you seem to think that the "real America" doesn't want to see this stuff, then you say that "sex and violence sells," which, of course, it does. If there's a child somewhere who'd watch this movie for the sex in it, more power to him. Finally, I personally think a sexually-open society is much preferable to the repressed lifestyle of 50 years ago (which was not only much less free but also completely mythical, by the way).
The fact that a sex scene was portrayed in front of children probably wasn't the best idea in the world, but I don't see how any child could misinterpret any of the scenes in this movie to mean "I should run out and get pregnant". Obviously these kids have some sort of intelligence otherwise they wouldn't be able to memorize their lines, and lets not even mention the fact that these children stayed in character enough to ignore the 'sex' going on right beside them on stage.
And another point is why was the scene filmed like that? It was there to show how terrible it was. An atrocious act was going on in that house, and the rest of the town carried on, unaware. It's there to make you think. You never know what's going on in anothers home. Rape is terrible, evil, and horrible, but nobody cares if they don't know.
Lastly I would like to make a comment on the age of children having/knowing about sex.
I grew up watching R-Rated movies. From about the time I was 6 there was nothing I wasn't allowed to watch (aside from blatant porn). When I got to be about 13 I started getting into real-life situations where people were having sex/doing drugs, and other crimes. Not only that, they were inviting me to go along. I had spent years watching movies about why all these things were bad, and I thought those people were idiots. I was unpopular and lonely through most of high-school because I dididn't partake of these things everyone else thought was fun. And the parents always say "I don't know where he gets it from". It comes from never being taught anything, then put into a world where you're going to be exposed to it. If you don't teach your kids about sex, or why they shouldn't do it, then when they get to high school and someone says "Hey, sex is fun" of course the kids going to say "Lets do it".
And what do you think kids are going to do if you talk to them about it. Most kids ignore their parents anyway, so showing them hundreds of movies that teach you that these things are wrong is the only way a kids going to learn. Aside from going into life blind and having a baby at age 14.
edit: I also forgot to mention that there is no real thing as right or wrong. Whatever it is you believe you get from some source. Whether you read the bible, it's part of your wing, or it's simply how you grew up. It's still just an opinion, so you can't say someone elses argument is wrong because yours is right. This goes out to both sides of the debate as well. Right and wrong are both just opinions.
My name is Miles Purinton, and I am the actor who played Jason (the principal child) in Dogville, and one of the children present on set during the scene that some people seem to find questionable.
Might I just say that this scene was tastefully handled while on set. I'd like to point out that, even though we were on set, no one in the cast, certainly not the children blatantly watched as this scene was being filmed. To believe anything else to be the case is simply jumping to conclusions in an attempt to villify the director. After all, there's no shot in the movie of any child watching the act take place. Anyone underage who had to be on set was down at the other end of the set- and we were directed to admire the old car. We all intentionally kept our eyes on the car. I had no idea as to the content of the scene until I first saw the film. I have not been emotionally traumatized even in the slightest. I think that this testimony alone should be enough to show that this entire situation has gotten completely out of hand.
The fact that the child actors be on the set is a perfect example of one of the most interesting and crucial points of the movie that those who object seem to have missed. The reason that there was so minimal a set, one excluding walls, is because Lars von Trier wanted to show the transparency of our indecent acts, and the fact that no one does anything when they know something to be happening. Were the acts depicted to have happened in real life, obviously, there would have been walls, but Chuck's children were still very close by. In essence, this despicable rape was performed in full view of everyone Chuck has known, and yet he goes through with it anyway. Even more disturbing is that no one stopped what they knew was happening. It should be noted that it is later revealed that the children all knew what was going on, and even rang the church bell every time an act like this occurred.
I do have to wonder about the wisdom of the scene in which you insisted on being spanked. That was perverse and creepy, and I wouldn't want a child to watch that scene, much less act in it.
Don't get me wrong, I think it was an interesting movie, but perhaps it did expose you and the other children to some overly "adult" content. Personally, I'd rather a child happen to see some nudity than the brutal acts Grace endured. I wasn't crazy about the children acting in scenes in which they are gunned down either.