MovieChat Forums > Uptown Girls (2003) Discussion > Children in American movies are so unrea...

Children in American movies are so unrealistic...

posted 22 years ago by lylee
62 replies | jump to latest

Why is it that kids in American movies and TV shows are always either impossibly cute preeners or wisecracking miniature adults (or both, as in this case)? I'm sure Dakota Fanning is a very talented actress, but the way her character is written, judging from the trailer, she's not like a real kid at all. Kids can be cute, kids can also be incredibly mean (like life - nasty, brutish, and short), but kids do not deliver one-liners or snippets of wisdom to their clueless elders. Possibly the only American director who does a good job portraying kids is Spielberg, and even he has a tendency to get gloppy.

Also (my pet peeve) mainstream American movies, esp. compared with their European counterparts, are waaaay too finicky and unrealistic about showing child sexuality. Must be the Puritan legacy. Also a general American tendency to idolize children, which I've never understood.

And by the way, I'm American, and proud to be one...in most respects.

Watch "About a Boy" for a much more realistic picture of children and how they behave.

[–] 22 years ago

[deleted]

[–] lylee 21 years ago

I guess I was remembering a couple of years ago when Adrian Lyne couldn't get any major studio to release his film version of "Lolita," and also about that time some town in Florida or somewhere banned the film adaptation of Gunter Grass's "The Tin Drum" from the local video store because it had, among other things a scene involving sexual contact between children. There are other examples I can't think of offhand.

It's only my pet peeve in the sense that it pretty well represents this general tendency by Americans to paint children as these pure beings, when they're really not, by a long shot. European films are a lot less nervous about showing child nudity and preadolescent sexuality, and it comes across as more naturalistic. Really, it's only dirty if you treat it that way.

[–] 21 years ago

[deleted]

[–] lime_kisses 21 years ago

I think the point of this film was to make Dakota Fanning act less like a kid than anything.

She is very talented though. I Am Sam was great.

[–] 21 years ago

[deleted]

[–] EthereusFlame 21 years ago

Woah! I really can't believe that you are really saying something like that? Kids are pure beigns and innocent as well, at least most of them. I don't believe in steriotypes(sp?), so please don't steryotype(sp?) kids... in the world there are all kinds of kids. Some kids can be cute and innocent, while others can be cruel, others are mischevious and so on. Also, not every kid in every movie made in the USA is portrayed as a litle angel or pure thing, there are different movies. Besides most of the people rather watch a simple movie with cute and innocent kids than a movie with "nudity and preadolescent sexuality"... Filmmakers have to make the kind of movies that they know people are going to like best...

"Get it Harry? We saw Uranus -ha ha ha-" Ron, HP 5

[–] PorkPie007 21 years ago

Filmmakers do NOT have to make the kinds of films people are going to like best if they are making a film for their own pleasure and not for some neat tidy studio profit. A film should be made by people who care about IT, not care about what the AUDIENCE wants and the capital that it will bring in. Filmmakers who work for their earnings often do a shoddy job; you can see Henry Fonda's utter devotion to making a good film throughout 12 Angry Men (for which he was not paid).

And children in American films are still stereotypical, although I might point out that some children (as I did and my father also) do actually make clever and humorous quips that completely baffled others. Or maybe its my family's sense of humour. The perfect example of the irritating schmuck of a child that you get in American cinema is little Kathy in The Birds. The kind of man Hitchcock was, and the wonders he created, I'm surprised he didn't notice the flaw and vomit on the prints.

[–] EthereusFlame 21 years ago

Well, it wouldn't be fair for people if filmmakers only made what they wanted and not what people want. I get your point, but what if everybody did what they wanted to do and not what they are supossed to? Anyways, this is just my opinion, everybody has a different opinion, depending on each person's point of view, so I respect your and everybody else's opinion :)

"Get it Harry? We saw Uranus -ha ha ha-" Ron, HP 5

[–] zharth 14 years ago

Film is not just about pleasing complacent audiences. Film is a form of art, and art has many purposes, not just to entertain. I think it's important for art to, at times, encourage people to face truths they'd rather not confront. But even so far as entertainment goes, different people are entertained by different things. I am entertained by films that depict difficult subject matters, and make controversial statements. Of course, any filmmaker has to balance his own vision with the question of what people are going to spend time and money going to see, but if the business of making films was only about pleasing the audience, we'd have nothing but mindless entertainment. Which is fine in moderation, but it's not very filling, and it would be sad if there were nothing available but films designed to please audiences in superficial ways. Experiencing art should not just entertain us, but also enrich us whenever possible.

screamingaxe.blogspot.com

[–] lanis_cupus 12 years ago

...but what if everybody did what they wanted to do and not what they are supossed to?

That IS the question.

That's the most you'll ever get out of me Wordman. Ever. -Eddie Wilson

[–] MTulliver 10 years ago

Let's be realistic. Most artists do not have money to fetter away on a project that they're at least not going to get a return on. Don't be ridiculous.

[–] cybershadow1 21 years ago

Lylee--

I agree with what you are saying. I can also understand to an EXTENT what the other people (on this board) and in American Society are trying to say... I agree with certain points of BOTH your [and their] views...

I basically want to say in response to your statement about kids' depictions in films as 'innocent little angels'...

Simply this: It's true. America does have a little problem with showing the true nature of things around them, PARTICULARLY about/to kids... Now, as far as film is concerned, I don't see nothing wrong with showing a child naked (especially if they're a baby taking a bath or something.) Really, what's there to hide!? Every person in the has 'one' or the 'other'... BIG DEAL!

As far as prepubescent depictions are concerned, it's a CASE-BY-CASE scenario. In all essence of things, whether something like [pre-pubescent] nude teenagers being shown in 'full glory' is acceptable (or whatever) SHOULD DEPEND on what type of Film is being shown in regards to the message or theme the director(s) or writer(s) wants the audience(s) to embrace...

I say: "If any scene don't fit right, yank it out..."
(You can always substitute the ambience of one's intention or idea in other ways and still get the intended effect....) <-- THINK ABOUT THAT....

I also will say this: Everyone, (both Americans and non-Americans) should be more open-minded about Ourselves and our Environments.. It's the only We can Grow....

(Think about a rose bud: How can a rose bud grow from a seedling underground into a full grown, aromatic rose? It had to Open Up. )

Now, there: I've said my 2 cents worth...

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As I thought more about the Reality of things in film, in particular with kids in film, this is what I felt I needed to say...

My thing about filmmaking and filmwriting is this:

If you are gonna write a film based on Reality (with kids or whatnot), you have be REAL to your audience(s).. You have to be REAL to your characters. You SHOULD not limit your yourself or your characters to social conformities or conveniences. By settling for 'social conformity', you hamper your abilities to hit your target(s) at the CORES of their Existence....

(Keep in mind: Your Characters are the only Vessels for the Audience to 'get into' your World.)

Now, there... I've said my $10 worth... (sorry if it was a little more than 2 cents...)

[–] sweetprincessplacebo 18 years ago

European films are a lot less nervous about showing child nudity and preadolescent sexuality, and it comes across as more naturalistic. Really, it's only dirty if you treat it that way.

Umm.. Am I the only one who thinks that a movie with an 8 yr older (.i.e Dakota Fanning) having any kind of intercourse in a movie is wrong? It's totally gross, their little bodies have yet to develop and people are criticizing americans because it isn't main stream in our culture? For the record, I am "Puritan" and I am not a parent, I can't even vote. Europe can do what they want, have little kids be nailed by each other and adults. I'm glad American still have the decency to not show little kids doing that kind of stuff. Just the thought is upsetting. It isn't "How you treat it" little kids having sex is just disgusting and I can't believe anyone would condesend to anatagonize american movies because we don't show mature 8 yr olders who are active like that in any kind of way. What kind of sick person wants to see that?

[–] CrazyDiamond18 18 years ago

nunsrcreepee, they dont mean kids having intercourse when they talk about a children's sexuality. They mean (im going to use an example someone else used as well) a kid in a bathtub. The are saying that in american movies we cover kids up with bubbles so that we cant see anything but thier head neck and probubly chest, where European movies would have clear water and you would be able to see the child's body. Its not about sex.

I think that it depends what the movie is as well as the age of the actor/actress. In a movie like this it would be toatally pointless and innapropriate to show a childs body. Also, If it is a baby or toddler though, showing thier body would be fine, but if they are older like 6,7,8, they know what is going on. Kids arent stupid. They know that they are being filmed naked, and most kids probubly wouldnt be too comfortable with that. I dont know how thier parents would feel about that either. And who knows what they would think about that when they grow up. But i think thier is nothing wrong with making sure a child is completly covered and whatnot because unless it is important to the storyline and context of the film, a naked child is really kind of pointless. In most movies i think it would be better to see bubbles then a naked kid.

"You can't change who people are without destroying who they were".

[–] hppg 18 years ago

Uh, well an American movie with Dakota Fanning is about to show her having sexual contact.

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] suprflycat 21 years ago

Blah, Blah, Blah. Bitch, Bitch, Bitch. Don't watch american flicks then DUDE!

[–] Illusion-XIII 21 years ago

What a brilliant and insightful observation Mr. flycat (or should I call you "supr"?). It is a much better idea to simply stop watching movies altogether than to express an opinion of disappointment in a troubling trend of sloppy and inaccessible characterizations. Why have a discussion about a movie on a "discussion board" when we could all just stop watching the films and sit quietly in our own homes and not bother anybody? For that matter, why write with eloquence and clarity when you can express your ideas by simply repeating the same words three times, then throwing in some meaningless CAPITAL LETTERS somewhere in the sentence? Now that's creative writing.

[–] jato-2 21 years ago

Dakota Fanning convincingly played the most powerful human being on planet Earth in Spielberg's epic mini-series, "Taken". Her range and skill is consistently top-shelf, A-list, adroit, redolent, power-house and whole-person. Fanning refuses to fit into molds. Fanning's command of subtle nuance dazzles on the big screen.

[–] lilzabubba 21 years ago

Here, here! Dakota Fanning is amazing! She is probably a genius! I mean reading at age two? wow! Also, her performances in "I am Sam" & "Taken" prove her to be more than a nine year old, real or not, she is pure talent and has an amazing gift! I can't wait for "Cat in the Hat"!

[–] i_am_here 21 years ago

Adding to lilzabubba's comment, Dakota certainly is amazing. The film 'Trapped' may have had it's problems but her performance in that was remarkable too. Check it out!

[–] blukat14 21 years ago

how boring would the movie be if she acted like a "real" 9 year old? really. it would suck.

hello

[–] 21 years ago

[deleted]

[–] aaathority 21 years ago

AMEN!

[–] Fairyeyes00 21 years ago

HERE, HERE, Scander3!! This isn't a movie aiming to open people's eyes, it's just to make people laugh. Whether people know it or not, there are plenty of little kids out there who are "wise beyond their years." I don't know what people are talking about when they talk about child sexuality (to me that's an oxymoron). When I was a child (I don't mean the teenage years) I certainly wasn't thinking about sex and nudity. And while there are children out there that do think about such things, A LOT of them don't.

[–] cute_lil_mango 21 years ago

Actually, I'm defintly going to see this movie, I think it's going to be very good. I don't know anything about portraying child sexuality in the usa, but I can tell you there are kids like 8 year-old Ray in real life. One of the reasons I want to see this movie is because I can relate to it.

From the commercials, I see a little girl growing up with divorced parents and a mom who doesnt spend muich time with her. She goes to a private school, and probably is smart and takes care of herself more than most kids.

I can relate to this because my parents divorced when I was little, and when I was like 6-10 I was exactly like her! I lived with my mom, changed form private school to a catholic school asnd was miserable. Everything in life sucked and I didnt have much of a childhood. Everything for me was school, and dancing. And all I did was complain and make sure I was the best in school. Then one day I woke up and realized what I was missing. So this movie reminds me of what I was like so I am going to see it.

[–] mcnooj82 21 years ago

Maybe you can get more out of the movie then... I thought the movie was rather boring and not as enjoyable as the movie thought it was.

It was just... dull. And it doesn't take THAT much to get a rise from me.

[–] shrek2004 21 years ago

I've seen this movie, I'm sure you haven't. That's the idea behind the movie, that the character Dakota Faninng plays is NOT normal. Pay attention. And I'm sure, even though you aren't proud to be an American, you take advantage of your freedoms to criticize your country.

[–] mcnooj82 21 years ago

You talkin' to me?

[–] Adman5189 21 years ago

For another realistic film about kids, watch "South Park: Bigger, Longer, and Uncut".

I'm just kidding, but seriously, I know a few kids that will repeat ANYTHING they hear coming out of their idiot box.

I've got a foot on the end of my arm

[–] Illusion-XIII 21 years ago

Pay attention. And I'm sure, even though you aren't proud to be an American, you take advantage of your freedoms to criticize your country.

Hey, Shrek, why don't you try paying attention. S/he said s/he is proud to be an American; made that point quite clear. So why don't you settle down before you start taking potshots at a person's national loyalties, especially when you don't know them.
And one more point, to be sure, criticizing American cinema is not by any stretch even remotely the same as criticizing the country. The United States of America is made up of a whole lot more than just Hollywood, and even if a person dislikes the movies that come out of this country, it's a far cry from sedition.
I've read some posts where people have sloppily disguised scathing anti-American commentary as a movie review, or as comments about "dumb Americans" who like certain movies. That's not even close to what this person did, so you need to lighten up a bit.

[–] 21 years ago

[deleted]