Michelle Tanner Makes Out With Gandhi

Well, as discussed with one of our blog members, I'm addressing a topic that has irked me somewhat for a long while, but has recently come to the forefront of my mind as a result of recent media press over an upcoming movie staring Mary Kate Olson and Ben Kingsly, titled "The Wackness." Regardless of this unfortunate and poorly chosen title, the film is receiving a great deal of notoriety over the scene in which the 21 year old Olsen (of former Full House fame) passionately kisses the 63 year old Kingsly, who once portrayed society's pacifist hero, Gandhi. The controversy that has erupted over this scene has me rather frustrated. It seems that many people seem to forget that actors are just that--ACTORS. They ACT for a living. It's not as if the two were caught in an abandoned alleyway going at it for unfortunate drifters to witness. They were simply performing a scene in a movie as part of their job. It's a fictional story that was written with a love scene between a 21 year old and a 63 year old, and these two happen to be filling the roles. If this is deemed inappropriate, how many wonderful (though probably controversial films) would never be made?? Movies can make us think, make us feel, and make us notice things we might otherwise never think to pay attention to. Should that be cast aside because society cannot accept the fact that a 21 year old playing a part should not be kissing a 63 year old playing another part? IT IS THEIR JOB. (Not to mention that although the age difference may be inappropriate, they are both, in fact legally adults). In a similar vain, I remember not long ago, when child actress Dakota Fanning was filming a movie in which I believe she was, in one scene, brutally sexually attacked. There was a great deal of controversy over this as well, since a child was being exposed to something when, if she were to go to SEE the movie, she would supposedly not be admitted without an adult. I can DEFINITELY see A BIT more controversy over this, but again, she is a child actress, and shows her maturity when she assured the public that she was simply playing a challenging role, portraying a horrific act, but that it was her job to act and that her fans need to come to terms with the fact that she is growing up and will be taking on more adult roles. This is all paraphrasing, of course, but that was the gist of her argument, and I pretty much agree. Not all kids her age (12 I think??) would be able to handle that obviously, but apparently she is able to deal with it and recognize it for what it is. It's even along the same lines as people being furious back in 1994, with Tom Cruise portraying Ann Rice's vampire Lestat. Many argued that the typical "handsome movie hero" could never play such a dark, disturbing character because it did not fit with his image. Now granted, as a 14 year old, I was biased by my Cruise obsession, but I still feel as I felt back then--that it was simply a chance for an actor to branch out. If an office worker had the opportunity to get a promotion, advance beyond their comfort zone, and move up in a company, I doubt you'd find many opposers. It's a similar situation. I guess it comes down to the fact that I just find it somewhat disconcerting that our society seems unwilling to dissociate ACTORS with the characters they portray. No matter how good the acting is, actors are portraying other people or characters and I think we as a public, need to remember that. Let them do their job, and get what we can from their work. That's the point of it all. Just my opinion. :)