Bozell Column: The 'Innocence Snuff Film'
Actor David Schwimmer, best known as the sad-sack Ross Geller on the hit ‘90s sitcom “Friends,” is now bemoaning the sex-saturated Hollywood business atmosphere and its corrosive effects on society, and women in particular. The first question many Hollywood critics should ask: Isn’t it curious that Schwimmer would care about this issue – after he earned a million dollars per episode on one of the most sex-obsessed sitcoms of all time?
Schwimmer granted an interview to the British newspaper the Telegraph promoting his new film”Trust,” which opened July 8. “Sex sells and unfortunately there’s this inbuilt hypocrisy in our society: we’re always talking about how inappropriate it is to see an older man with a very young girl but at the same time all our advertising is based on that,” he said.
He asserted that “both here and in the UK, we have this real emphasis on how important it is to look young and sexual, so that’s the message we’re sending our girls. Look at the biggest pop stars around at the moment: everything they do is about sex.”
Lady Gaga, Katy Perry, Rihanna? Check, check, and check.
At the most extreme edge of all this mediated sexuality is sexual violence. Schwimmer said his new passion is inspired by his relationship with two women, both child sexual abuse victims and one a later date-rape victim, which led him to take a position as a director with the Santa Monica Rape Treatment Center in Los Angeles. Schwimmer also may be growing more concerned as a new husband and father of a baby girl.
But Schwimmer’s new film “Trust” raises as many questions as it’s asking. It has a moralistic plot that bemoans our sexualized culture. It centers on the gradual Internet seduction and rape of a 14-year-old girl whose unwitting father, in an ironic twist, is working on a seductive advertising campaign at the time. (Think Brooke Shields for Calvin Klein.) The assailant portrays himself online as 16, but by the time he meets his teenaged prey, she knows he’s more like 40.
The problem comes when the actress playing the rape victim is 14, just like the character. Schwimmer admitted in his Telegraph interview that it was tough on the young actress, Liana Liberato. “It was extremely difficult to film, and so important not to do anything gratuitous. I know that it was pushing the boundaries just to have Liana come out in her lingerie, and I made sure that there was modesty lining on the underwear and that the scene was done tastefully and respectfully with regards to her and her body.” He deliberately put that scene at the end of the filming schedule and insisted there was “no one in the room who didn’t have to be there.”
Clearly, Schwimmer didn’t get it. The one person in the room that didn’t have to be there was a girl who could have better spent the day in an eighth-grade classroom. There is no such thing as a “respectful” rape scene with a 14-year-old actress.
Time magazine critic Mary Pols described the end product as an "innocence snuff film," and found it "excruciating to watch" actress Liberato in her underwear, appearing delicate and awkward, be assaulted on screen. It was so unsettling, she wrote that “had I not been obliged to stay, I could easily have seen myself storming out of the theater at that point, spitting about prurience and such.”
Pols tried to resist the urge to “spit” like a prude...or a parent. But Pols argued the "the film gains power in its gritty depiction of the aftermath."
For some, this may recall the filming of then-12-year-old Dakota Fanning, the star of “Charlotte’s Web” and other family films like “The Cat in the Hat,” in a five-minute rape scene in a little movie that never went anywhere called “Hounddog.” Some adult scenes should cause a director to look for an adult with a childlike quality instead of an actual child.
Sometimes, Hollywood directors take uber-realism to new heights of silliness. When making “Titanic,” director James Cameron demanded the set include carpeting woven by the original suppliers of Titanic’s carpets, and meticulously reproduced plates and silverware with the White Star Line crest on each piece. But when you film rape scenes with 14-year-olds, you’ve gone over the top. This simply should not happen.
- Brent Bozell's blog
- Login to post comments
















Comments
Baloney.
Submitted by motherbelt on Sat, 07/09/2011 - 8:18am.
“It was extremely difficult to film, and so important not to do anything gratuitous. I know that it was pushing the boundaries just to have Liana come out in her lingerie, and I made sure that there was modesty lining on the underwear and that the scene was done tastefully and respectfully with regards to her and her body.”
Tastefully and respectfully would have been to have the scene implied, behind closed doors.
You know, like they used to do in the old days. Everyone knew what happened when Rhett Bulter carried Scarlett up those stairs, and we didn't have to see it.
Maybe Hollywood should wake up and realize that there is no "tasteful and respectful" way to depict some things.
The epic fail of "Hounddog" and probably this film too, is evidence that Hollywood makes the kind of pictures they want to make, rather than what the public wants to see.
Well, you did it again, mb
Submitted by Blonde on Sat, 07/09/2011 - 12:19pm.
My first thought upon reading this was the "implied" action, not shown on camera. And of course, that was the point I wished to make, and which you made first with your GWTW reference. Well played.
Am I the only one who has never seen an episode of "Friends"? I only know Scwimmer's work from his portrayal of Cpt. Sobel in "Band of Brothers"....and that character was such a whiny self-interested creep that the role may be coloring my opinion of him. Having said that, he seems to be pontificating from his high horse here, "do as I say and not as I do". IOW.....HYPOCRITE!!!
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Blonde - You're not alone. (cc: MB)
Submitted by Grumpy in Arizona on Sat, 07/09/2011 - 10:33pm.
I am pleased to announce that I have never seen an episode of "Friends." (Does that make me a bad person? LOL)
Did see "Band of Brothers" and agree with your description of the character.
Best to both you and Motherbelt,
- Grump :o)
No Friends
Submitted by nkviking75 on Sat, 07/09/2011 - 3:26pm.
I've never seen Friends either, and from what I've heard about it, I don't believe I missed anything.
“Always love your country — but never trust your government!" -- Bob Novak (1931-2009)
When you put the clowns in charge, don't be surprised when a circus breaks out.
Friends
Submitted by Unsane on Sat, 07/09/2011 - 7:44pm.
In spite of Monica and Rachel (hotties), I have never seen a single episode of Friends either. In fact, it was right around this point 20 years ago I just shrugged my shoulders at TV and began putting it out to pasture. So there are many, many series I haven't seen a single episode of.
I find my music and my reading much more interesting. Not to mention other activities.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Yeah but was it rape rape...?
Submitted by NeoKong on Sat, 07/09/2011 - 8:39am.
Why do the lefties always have to sexualize children....?
It's creepy.
Amen, mb.
Submitted by HockeyKid on Sat, 07/09/2011 - 8:54am.
It's the old story about the perv who adamantly insists that people shouldn't be allowed to show pictures like "this one", and "that one", and most particularly "ones like THIS! Just look at how terrible that is!" as he displays his collection.
Ick.
"Beauty is only skin deep, but liberal's to the bone." - me
Next time, try acting.
Submitted by Mike009 on Sat, 07/09/2011 - 10:01am.
Why did Schwimmer have to use an actual 14 year old girl in his film? Hasn't he ever heard the term "acting?"
Schwimmer should have asked Ron Howard about making movies. When Howard produced Apollo 13 he didn't use real astronauts - he used actors!
For that matter
Submitted by SLUGGO on Sat, 07/09/2011 - 10:04am.
He also didn't film an actual rape.
Sluggo
Dinosaur actors
Submitted by Mike009 on Sat, 07/09/2011 - 10:51am.
I suppose next you're going to spill the beans about the dinosaurs in Jurassic Park not being real.
dinosaurs in Jurassic Park not being real....
Submitted by Tugboat Phil on Sat, 07/09/2011 - 3:28pm.
WHAAAAATTT?!?
What about Brooke Shields' movies, and Lolita w/ Jeremy Irons?
Submitted by gopcongress on Sat, 07/09/2011 - 9:45am.
Actually, Schwimmer has been a major backer of child protection for the past few years, and in my conservative view, Schwimmer was not acting irresponsibly by having the teen actress portray her part. Obviously, the scene depicts an illegal and violent act, but how is this different from a scene that shows the violent death of children, or children drinking, or whatnot?
If you REALLY want to see a movie that does go over the line a bit, think of Lolita, in 1998 with Jeremy Irons in scenes that clearly show non-simulated behavior with a minor that would warrant sex charges in most states. Or how about Brooke Shields' movies when she was a pre-teen, including full frontal nudity in Pretty Baby and the Blue Lagoon? She even ran nude in front of George Burns!
Perhaps we are becoming more cynical in our age. Schwimmer may very well be a leftist / socialist / etc, but I am not going to go where Brent went on this one. I support Schwimmer in this case, and brava to Ms. Liberato on her performance.
"The news and truth are not the same thing." -Walter Lippmann (1889-1974) FOLLOW ME ON TWITTER
What a creepy thing to say...
Submitted by Grumpy in Arizona on Sat, 07/09/2011 - 10:06am.
Mr. Bozell is absoluty correct!
I won’t question your conservative credentials, but where on earth do you get the idea that because someone “backs child protection” they have the right to abuse a child by putting them in a movie that depicts child rape while making them wear a negligee?
You cannot honestly believe this movie was made for altruistic reasons or to increase public awareness of a terrible social ill… it was made so the producers could make a profit. And that b.s. about how the movie is far more “tastefully done” than Lolita, et. al. is just nonsensical palaver.
There are several paradigms
Submitted by gopcongress on Sat, 07/09/2011 - 2:55pm.
There are several paradigms that may be confusing several people here. The bottom line is that the intent of the scene is to show the atrocity being committed by an adult against a defenseless child (teen). Now, we are not questioning the intent of the scene. The biggest question is to the particulars of the actual PERFORMANCE of the scene, including the real ages of the actors.
The blatant fact is that Liberato was NOT abused, so that cannot be used as a reason. She was DEPICTING being abused. This is key.
So let's look at this honestly. The "tasteful" remark in itself is subjective. But I would not go so far as actuallly "snuffing" Liberato's "innocence." And inferring that Schwimmer is a child abuser actually detracts from REAL victims of child abuse, which I also have a problem with.
Maybe its just me, but I found Lolita and the Shields' movies FAR more exploitive, and I daresay illegal. In addition, movies such as "Bad Teacher," "3 o'clock High," and "My Tutor" to be far more offensive, as the PROMOTE criminal sexual activity between adults and children. Perhaps I'm just tilting at windmills, but I just don't see the actual abuse or innocence snuffing here compared to other venues.
"The news and truth are not the same thing." -Walter Lippmann (1889-1974) FOLLOW ME ON TWITTER
Gop - Paradigms??? That’s your argument???
Submitted by Grumpy in Arizona on Sat, 07/09/2011 - 4:58pm.
“There are several paradigms that may be confusing several people here.”
- Which definition of paradigm are you using? Paradigm: 1. “An example or model” or 2. “A generally accepted concept that explains a complex idea?” Or are you using the “new age version” which essentially means, “We traditionalists are too stupid to understand the concept.”
“The bottom line is that the intent of the scene is to show the atrocity being committed by an adult against a defenseless child (teen).”
- And intentions are all that matter? If the intent was to “describe” the foul act, I would be with you, but the intent was to “show” the foul act!
Now, we are not questioning the intent of the scene.
- I am. The intent was to show a negligee wearing teenager getting raped.
“The biggest question is to the particulars of the actual PERFORMANCE of the scene, including the real ages of the actors.”
- You are correct. But at what point do you consider it a performance and not the actual degradation of a child (as it was on the part of the creators of the film)?
“The blatant fact is that Liberato was NOT abused, so that cannot be used as a reason. She was DEPICTING being abused. This is key.”
-The only thing “blatant” about it is that 14 yr. old Liberato was “used” as a prop and an object by the creators of this so-called work of art. You seem to conveniently forget that the girl is not a piece of meat or an “actress first,” but a living, breathing child… legally not able to make decisions on her own. Someone (likely parents or guardians) made the decision that it would be OK for her to pretend to be raped for a commercial film. You don’t find that just a bit repulsive?
I can only conclude that you feel it is proper to use and sexualize a child for commercial purposes in the name of art, but somehow draw the line at actual abuse… so where does filming her in lingerie fall in that spectrum of yours?
I’m not buying a bit of your “sophisticated” argument.
They failed horribly then
Submitted by ckc1227 on Sat, 07/09/2011 - 4:27pm.
"You cannot honestly believe this movie was made for altruistic reasons or to increase public awareness of a terrible social ill… it was made so the producers could make a profit."
If it was, they failed horribly:
Box Office
Budget:
$9,500,000 (estimated)
Opening Weekend:
$58,214 (USA) (3 April 2011) (28 Screens)
Gross:
$120,016 (USA)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1529572/
ckc 1227 - That's good news!
Submitted by Grumpy in Arizona on Sat, 07/09/2011 - 5:37pm.
Thanks for the link. When I went there I noticed the move was rated:
Motion Picture Rating (MPAA)
“Rated R for disturbing material involving the rape of a teen, language, sexual content and some violence”
So theoretically, the young actress can’t even get into a theater where this is playing – she can only “act” in the movie. Sheesh – What a screwed-up world.
- Grump
No excuse for this filth!
Submitted by Grumpy in Arizona on Sat, 07/09/2011 - 9:47am.
Hollywood has ruined every genre of movie ever made with their almost pathological desire to “push the envelope.” Well folks, there aren’t any envelopes anymore... the supply is exhausted.
Had this movie been made before the 1960’s, there would not be so much as a description of what happened to the girl… the idea would have been transmitted by a character saying something like, “How could anyone do THAT to a child,” and every adult in the audience would know what “that” meant… and would be horrified and repulsed by the very thought of it – But they would keep watching because in the end the audience would see good triumph over evil.
Good rarely triumphs over evil in today’s movies. When it does, it’s always because “the hero” has some outer-worldly power, or access to a super-technology that can be graphically displayed, or is simply a brute. I suspect the reason for all the graphics is because there is so little imaginative creativity in the film business that they have no idea how to communicate an idea with words.
Please excuse the rant… I’m still P.O.ed over what Hollywood did to the “classic-western” genre of the likes of John Ford.
Bozell
Submitted by SLUGGO on Sat, 07/09/2011 - 9:56am.
Without the death of an actual human being, how is this a snuff film?
Sluggo
I believe
Submitted by flynmudd on Sat, 07/09/2011 - 10:12am.
I believe Sluggo if you really take the time to read the story again, you will realize that what is being "snuffed" is childlike innocence. The period of your life before reality slams you upside the head.
I have
Submitted by SLUGGO on Sat, 07/09/2011 - 10:45am.
And yet it seems all the comments are based on the presumptions of Bozell, who hasn't viewed the scene in question. This story required a provocative title to get things moving, but some verisimilitude of the events during the filming of the scene tells a much less harsh story. While the conservative position is to denounce Schwimmer for using a 14 year old to play a 14 year old (who thinks of such things?????), he should be commended for bringing attention to a serious issue. If one 14 year old sees this movie and gets the message, a life may be saved. I think that's worth it.
Sluggo
Uh Sluggo,
Submitted by bkeyser on Sat, 07/09/2011 - 11:02am.
"Time magazine critic Mary Pols described the end product as an "innocence snuff film," and found it "excruciating to watch" actress Liberato in her underwear, appearing delicate and awkward, be assaulted on screen."
And I'm not sure this is a "conservative" position- this seems to be a moral issue and, as some here have claimed, a fraction of Progressives/Liberals are endowed with some measure of morality. ;-/
Not having seen the film I can't take a position on the scene in question though if it was critical for th film's message than maybe strong implication with a "behind closed doors" approach like motherbelt (and others) mentioned above would have been better suited.
Ahh, the "Brittany Spears Theory" rears its ugly head…
Submitted by Grumpy in Arizona on Sat, 07/09/2011 - 11:20am.
Images are powerful, they are especially powerful to children.
“If just one 14 year old sees Brittany transforms from a “Mouseketeer” into a self indulgent slut, AND gets the message… It will be worth it!”
How about if one 14 year old girl sees this piece of garbage and has nightmares or begins to withdraw from society and normal human interaction… will that be worth it?
Why do you libs need to try and justify every abnormal and counterproductive concept, action, or image and why can’t you just let kids be kids and develop at their own pace?
Did someone force the 14 year old into this?
Submitted by SLUGGO on Sat, 07/09/2011 - 11:28am.
Exploitation by million dollar check isn't really exploitation. She could have turned down the role but chose not to. You also might consider that few teens will see the R rated movie, but based on reviews any parent who sees it should be concerned upon exiting the theater. That is if they haven't yet caught on to the To Catch a Predator series.
Sluggo
Slug- You have completely missed the point.
Submitted by Grumpy in Arizona on Sat, 07/09/2011 - 11:52am.
Slug- You have completely missed the point.
So if you get paid for it… it’s not exploitation. Gee, that good news for pimps, porn-producer, and the like who no longer have to worry about exploiting their women.
“She could have turned down the role but chose not to.” Pure stupidity. Since when does a 14 year old have the right to enter contracts on their own? And you best believe she had a contract to do this film and someone influenced her to do it.
“…Caught “Catch a Predator Series” series.” Absolute drivel! Decent parents constantly worry about the safety of their children against predators and know (and knew) about the particular evil of child rape long before it was a reality show or a movie.
The point is one does not have to “use” (and she was "used" whether you care to acknowledge it or not) a 14 year old in a negligee to make a point about the rape of a child.
Wait for it folks… we are about to be treated to some Voltaire:
Submitted by Grumpy in Arizona on Sat, 07/09/2011 - 12:07pm.
The Voltaire argument: “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”
Here amended to read: “I disapprove of what you film, but will defend to the death your right to film it.”
Personally, I haven’t figured out a way to “defend” child-exploitation, thank God.
Voltaire Argument
Submitted by NC Boy on Sat, 07/09/2011 - 12:29pm.
And have you noticed that neither Voltaire nor anyone else who falls back on this quote really, truly means it?
NC Boy : Great point!
Submitted by Grumpy in Arizona on Sat, 07/09/2011 - 12:37pm.
Honestly, I hadn't thought of that before... Thanks for the observation.
Off topic: Regarding yesterdays "Catholic" thread: I too enjoyed the give-and-take adult nature of the conversation. Sorry I didn't reply to your kind note.
Best to you,
- Grump :o)
As a matter of fact, you
Submitted by Jack Bauer on Sat, 07/09/2011 - 2:39pm.
As a matter of fact, you don't have to show the actual attack and rape on screen to deal with the subject.
But thank you for telling me what the "conservative" position is on this subject. It's always good to know the party line.
Mmmm, I was thinking of going to see Mamet's Sexual Perversity in Chicago next week, got the tickets, but if you tell me now what the party line is I might make other arrangements... **** me??? ^^^^ you.
All of the above Mr Obama? --- How about ALL OF THE BELOW, instead.
So should this extend to all media?
Submitted by Tugboat Phil on Sat, 07/09/2011 - 3:41pm.
Should the true crime shows (FBI Files and not crime fiction) use child actors shown in very graphic terms, being tortured and raped by serial killers, as long as it's done "...tastefully and respectfully with regards to her and her body.”?
I'm not questioning the legality of it, but the need for it to portray the dangers involved. Alfred Hitchcock scared the crap out me as a kid, without ever showing actual violence in a graphic manner. Even in Psycho we didn't have to see the knife actually make contact, and I still think about that in the shower, some 40 years later.
More to the point...
Submitted by Teamcheeser on Sun, 07/10/2011 - 3:25am.
In "Psycho" they used Hershey's chocolate syrup instead of blood for that shower scene.
If a sundae topping can double for blood, surely they could find an adult actress to portray a teenager.
Scwimmer, you're not just a filthy perv--
Submitted by carolina09 on Sat, 07/09/2011 - 10:00am.
You're a self-righteous, self-infatuated filthy perv. You swim in perversion, and I pity your daughter.
Bet your hero is the filthy perv, Woody Allen.
Or that great artist, Roman Polanski
Submitted by NC Boy on Sat, 07/09/2011 - 1:50pm.
Who drugged his 13 year old victim in order to get her to submit to rape without any annoying resistance.
Casey Anthony...
Submitted by iveseenitall on Sat, 07/09/2011 - 10:30am.
She murdered her child and walked. 'Nuff said about our society's "values".
NEVER,NEVER trust a "liberal" (progressive)
Sounds like Trust is a bust
Submitted by Jack Bauer on Sat, 07/09/2011 - 2:30pm.
Sounds like Trust is a bust -- so to speak. It's on my Must NOT Watch list.
All of the above Mr Obama? --- How about ALL OF THE BELOW, instead.
Not necessary
Submitted by nkviking75 on Sat, 07/09/2011 - 3:35pm.
I agree entirely with Mr. Bozell. I think the film could have been written in a way that implied the rape rather than showing it, and I think they could have found a young looking adult to play a 14 year old if they insisted on showing it. And so far nobody has brought up an irony of Hollywood culture: Teenagers are often played by actors as much as a decade (or more!) older than their characters. Think "Grease" or "Glee". And many times those actors aren't even believable in their youthful roles.
“Always love your country — but never trust your government!" -- Bob Novak (1931-2009)
When you put the clowns in charge, don't be surprised when a circus breaks out.
I've noticed that when
Submitted by Rusty Shackleford on Sun, 07/10/2011 - 1:07am.
I've noticed that when creative types are freed from censorship rules (i.e network TV vs. HBO) the creative "sophisticated" liberal minds of the entertainment industry load up their content with sex and F-bombs. Everything else is no different, better, or edgier than what could be found on network TV. This goes to show that liberal sophistication is basically the same as the teenager mentality.
I've noticed this because I've been watching a lot of TV shows on DVD & Netflix (Dexter, The Sopranos, Six Feet Under, etc) Dexter's great and even though it's a show about a serial killer the show isn't very violent. The only thing about it that's pay-cable worthy is the overuse of the F-bomb and some occasional shots of genitalia. So the freedom of the reduction in FCC rules is limited to content a 15 year old would write.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Matthews: The Joy Behar of MSNBC.
Bill Maher: The Joy Behar of HBO.
Paul Krugman: The Joy Behar of The New York Times.
The shows you mention are all
Submitted by Jack Bauer on Sun, 07/10/2011 - 9:47am.
The shows you mention are all amongst my favorites -- especially Dexter.
Though I have to disagree on the level of violence!
Boardwalk Empire is also excellent.
All of the above Mr Obama? --- How about ALL OF THE BELOW, instead.
Question:
Submitted by bkeyser on Sun, 07/10/2011 - 7:59am.
I meant to comment on this yesterday but it -like so many things these days- slipped my mind.
The picture accompanying this thread -the one of Schwimmer with the girl on the bed in the background- did anybody else glance at that and think Schwimmer was Rachel Maddow?
This type of film has one saving grace...
Submitted by jdripper on Sun, 07/10/2011 - 10:41am.
the cops can sit outside and photograph all of the child molesters in the community. Only a pedophile would enjoy this.
Jack