Sunday, 21 January 2018

Matilda Actress Mara Wilson: A 13-Year-Old Girl Is Not “All Grown Up”

quote [ What’s really at play here the creepy, inappropriate public inclination to sexualize young girls in the media. We do not need to perpetuate the culture of dehumanization Hollywood has enabled. But the media has become democratized; social media and user-generated content mean anyone can write about anyone, and there is a good chance anyone will see it. We are all part of the media, but I don’t know if we’ve realized that yet, nor understood what a tremendous responsibility that is. ]

Natalie Portman, at 13, experienced 'sexual terrorism'

There was a southpark episode about Britney Spears touching on the way we treat young celebrities, but my mind typically goes back to the plotline in American Gods regarding child sacrifice.
[SFW] [people] [+5 Underrated]
[by raphael_the_turtle@6:39pmGMT]

Comments

electric guppy said @ 7:52pm GMT on 21st Jan [Score:-1 Boring]
No, dear, you did not experience "sexual terrorism." "Sexual intimidation," perhaps. Terrorism has as its aim political change. JFC, words have meanings.
lilmookieesquire said @ 8:02pm GMT on 21st Jan
I appreciate the need to use grandiose terms for media attention and watercooler conversation, but when I hear the terms “sexual terrorism” I think of literal raping and pillaging with a dose of genocide/ethnic cleansing.

That doesn’t mean what she experienced wasn’t bad/horrible/traumatizing/life-changing.

And while part of me is like “at least she is rich and famous vs victims”, actually that probably does make her a great figure head to bring up the issue for other people whom can’t get that attention/headlines. Like Elle.com would GAF if it was just some “nobody”.

That said I dislike the terminology used but I can’t think of anything better. I suppose the issue is more that Elle.com needs click through or something and it’s easy “journalism”.
arrowhen said[1] @ 9:28pm GMT on 21st Jan
The Prostate Liberation Organization has claimed responsibility for the anal dildo bombing that ripped through a London tubeway station yesterday afternoon, leaving 12 civilians, including two American tourists, critically stimulated.
lilmookieesquire said @ 9:51pm GMT on 21st Jan
Exactly this. Yes.
raphael_the_turtle said @ 9:33pm GMT on 21st Jan
Are you confusing the sources of the two articles?
lilmookieesquire said @ 9:51pm GMT on 21st Jan
I am. Although Elle May have more journalistic integrity. :/
foobar said @ 8:32pm GMT on 21st Jan [Score:3 Underrated]
Ok, but that autoplay video at the bottom was auditory terrorism.
Dienes said @ 9:27pm GMT on 21st Jan [Score:3 Underrated]
If terrorism 1) is about creating fear to achieve a political/religious/financial/ideological aim, and considering 2) the things that happened to Natalie happen on a large scale (which they do, with just slight variations), and 3) female sexuality is a lynchpin of a lot of political, religious, and ideological issues, I think we can afford to give her a pass on the word choice.

Jesus, you're unironically doing "Well, actually, the horrible things you experienced were intimidating, not terrifying." rather than being appalled at what she experienced.
norok said @ 8:01pm GMT on 21st Jan
It's an ironically delicate balance. The entertainment industry is in a big push to promote the self esteem of young women. You can put them out to the world to preternaturally defeat trained adversaries in lightsabre combat and slay Upsidedown demons with mind powers but as the author noted, the instinct to protect young women is still strong. Can we have both?
Dienes said[1] @ 9:31pm GMT on 21st Jan [Score:3 Underrated]
The entertainment industry is in a big push to appear like it is promoting body positivity, anyway.

I think we have an instinct to protect children and youths. The idea that only young women should be protected is p sexist against both men and women.
conception said @ 5:18pm GMT on 22nd Jan
For instance - The Coreys in the 80s.
arrowhen said @ 8:34pm GMT on 21st Jan [Score:-1 WTF]
Attention whores whining about attention. I dream of a future when we replace actors with robots and all these vacuous puppets have to collect Basic Income in obscurity like the rest of us.
Dienes said @ 9:39pm GMT on 21st Jan [Score:1 Underrated]
You are calling someone an attention whore for complaining about being sexually harassed at 13. A child being in a movie doesn't suddenly make it okay to send them rape fantasies.

Natalie Portman also studied at Harvard and co-authored two published research papers. I'm not sure where you are drawing the 'vacuous puppets' from.
lilmookieesquire said @ 9:55pm GMT on 21st Jan
Honestly I think it’s the spin.

She really is in a position to speak out about this and raise awareness for victims that can’t.

Because she generates revenue for CNN. Because they frame it as a famous/rich person complaining.

I find that the fine print in these articles is that it’s usually victims who ask the celebrity to speak out- which is then highlighted as a celebrity only issue.

It’s dysfunctional, but then again I remember when the huff post was considered a journalistic crisis as opposed to a serious news organization.
arrowhen said @ 12:05am GMT on 22nd Jan [Score:-2 WTF]
You are calling someone an attention whore for complaining about being sexually harassed at 13.

No I'm not! That would be horrible! I'm calling all actors* attention whores.

And obviously people aren't solely defined by their jobs. Natalie Portman can be a scholar and an attention whore. Heck, some actors even also perform useful roles in the entertainment field, like writing or directing. But they're still attention whores in addition to those other activities, because that's what actors are.

(* And in really just talking about "screen actors" here. Stage acting is a legitimate if somewhat obsolete craft.)
Dienes said @ 12:37am GMT on 22nd Jan
I sincerely hope you don't watch movies, then. Since you disapprove of acting as a profession that requires knowledge and skill and seem to view it as a significant character flaw.
arrowhen said @ 5:57pm GMT on 22nd Jan
I love movies! I just think that the creeps who act in them are nothing more than a necessary evil, and that if they ever stop being necessary the craft of movie making will be enhanced by their absence.
Kat said @ 6:13am GMT on 22nd Jan [Score:0 Underrated]
Clarification: that -1 WTF was for separating stage and film actors into separate categories based on the criteria of "attention whore".

I'm not even getting into the rest of the comment.
arrowhen said @ 5:54pm GMT on 22nd Jan
Nah, I separate stage and film actors into separate categories based on skill. Portraying a believable character in front of a live audience for 90 minutes amid the obvious artificiality of a stage set is a genuinely impressive feat. Doing it in front of a camera for two minutes at a time with do-overs if you fuck up your lines and a small army of professional technicians on hand before, during, and after working hard to enhance the illusion? Not so impressive.

It's the difference between running a marathon and dressing up like a marathon runner to be filmed running a few steps at a time.
Kat said @ 6:18am GMT on 23rd Jan
Curiosity: have you ever worked in theater or film?
arrowhen said[1] @ 9:16pm GMT on 23rd Jan
Heh, not paid work. I used to run with that sort of crowd back in my clove-smoking artfag days and did a bit of random gruntwork on various friends' projects, but nothing that ever amounted to anything. I was more of a wannabe rock star than a wannabe filmmaker.
Kat said[1] @ 4:20am GMT on 24th Jan
Fair enough.

I have seen firsthand the work that goes into both crafts.

I have worked in theater for just shy of 25 years. I also have worked on film sets, including acting, since I was in single digits. All of my work has been paid.

I've also worked on many events over the past 20 years that have involved me interacting with various performers and actors. Some were awful people; most were quite nice. My experiences were with people of varied celebrity status, age, gender, race, and genre.

On behalf of all of the people I have had the privilege to work with in these three areas: I disagree with your opinion and question how much of it is based on facts/experiences vs. blind opinion.
the circus said @ 9:11pm GMT on 21st Jan
Didn't read the whole thing (just in case I missed something), but I can't help but think that adults writing to child stars hoping for a response is inductive of a mental issue in the "adult". Perhaps, mentally, those adults aren't as far off from the children they're writing to. At the very least I wouldn't think it fair to blame society in general for that.
arrowhen said[1] @ 9:21pm GMT on 21st Jan [Score:1 Underrated]
I think any adult who writes to a celebrity of any age is mildly to moderately fucked in the head.
the circus said @ 11:01pm GMT on 21st Jan
Fair.
raphael_the_turtle said @ 12:19pm GMT on 22nd Jan [Score:3]
Not reading the whole thing seems to be the prerequisite for commenting today.
the circus said @ 12:23am GMT on 23rd Jan
Also fair.

Post a comment
[note: if you are replying to a specific comment, then click the reply link on that comment instead]

You must be logged in to comment on posts.



Posts of Import
SE v2 Closed BETA
First Post
Subscriptions and Things
Mentions - Beta
AskSE: What do you look like?

Karma Rankings
arrowhen
ScoobySnacks
HoZay
XregnaR
lilmookieesquire