They loved her in 'Charlotte's Web.' Not so much in Joan Jett's
In the upcoming biopic on the band The Runaways (Ch-ch-ch-ch-ch-ch-ch-ch-Cherry Bomb), Dakota Fanning's Cherie Currie character will get a little Sapphic with Kristen Stewart's Joan Jett. That's because the "bio" part of "biopic" stands for "biographical," which means reality not revisionism. And in reality, Currie and Jett got a little frisky.
Here's a trailer from the film:
Well, leave it to Peter LaBarbera's Americans For Truth to step into the frame and attack Fanning for taking on such a role. Especially if she's unwilling to turn her press junkets into anti-gay rallies:
Donna Miller special projects coordinator for Americans for Truth About Homosexuality, expressed concern that [Dakota Fanning's] young fans might glamorize the starlet's shocking behavior.
"That behavior includes a lesbian affair, sexually explicit song lyrics, risqué clothing and a pathetic character in a drugged-out existence," Miller told WND. "In her interviews at Sundance, nowhere have I seen her denounce any of that behavior as destructive or immoral. In fact, she romanticizes her Cherie Currie character. Fanning indicates the lesbian sex scene is just a natural progression of the relationship."
Dakota Fanning in steamy, lesbian sex flick [WND]
Hmm, will teens glamourize rock and roll? Gee, that'd be a first! Next they'll express fears that teens are in danger of enjoying malls, the MTV, or peppering their phrases with the word "like." [::writer rolls eyes like an angsty teen whose dad just did something that's like totally so lame, ohmigawd::]
But here's the deal: Lesbian attractions are not a cinematically-ingrained thing! Just like countless gay teens have watched countless teen flicks without wanting to schtup a member of the opposite sex (or a pie), straight teens will watch this flick and have only the degree of attraction to the on-screen lady-loving that their biology has already ingrained! And to suggest that Dakota should have refused this role because of its content, or gone on to denounce the film so that teens will not find it attractive? Well that's the truly disturbing plot at hand, on both an artistic and humanistic level!
Though the real question: Will they like Dakota's portrayal if she wins an Oscar for this role, since that union of actress and statue will be opposite-sex? The mind boggles.
Peter is a twat! I SO CAN'T WAIT FOR THIS MOVIE!!!
Posted by: Alonzo | Feb 4, 2010 12:57:11 PM
But the Twilight series, which teaches girls it's okay to be whiny and totally dependent on men, is a-okay, I'm sure, because at least that psychologically abusive relationship is between a man (vampire?) and a woman. Like, totally makes sense.
Posted by: Aya | Feb 4, 2010 1:40:31 PM
@ Aya: You beat me to it! I think Joan Jett is a *much* better role model for teenage girls than Bella Swan.
I am amazed that they think a young actress promoting a movie would even consider denouncing her role in that movie, particularly when the role she played was a real person. Sane people regard Currie and Jett as valued musical pioneers. Why wouldn't Fanning and Stewart want to play interesting and talented artists as young women?
These people confirm my theory that nobody is so dirty-minded as a prude. Most of us are going to think of the Runaways movie as a biopic, as a portrait of artists as young women, as a movie about music. And part of those lives includes a brief sexual relationship between two young women. We will not be thinking of it as a "steamy lesbian sex flick." I think I understand how Donna Miller got her job with AFTAH--she's as filthy-minded as Porno Pete.
Posted by: GreenEyedLilo | Feb 4, 2010 2:19:46 PM
I thought people who were actresses did things like this to get a paycheck. To think, they might be doing movies to convert innocent youth...Horrors!
Posted by: Bob Miller | Feb 4, 2010 4:06:31 PMcomments powered by Disqus