Child actors. Is it right?
Thu, 24 July 2003, 11:15 amjason11 posts in thread
Child actors. Is it right?
Thu, 24 July 2003, 11:15 amHello,
I am doing a research assignment on child actors. If you could possibly answer these questions and email them to me it would be so much help. Please note: Your email address and name will be kept confidentail. The only other person who may see this information is my teacher. For more info please email at - jassy_jase@yahoo.com
Q1:
Do you believe its right for mothers to push their children, some as young as 2 into modeling and talent agency's?
Q2:
At what age do you belive children should be allowed to work in the arts industry?
Q3:
Do you think it's right for theatre companies to use children to rope in profit. Eg. Annie, Oliver, Sound of Music.
Q4:
Should we wipe out child performing all together in television/theatre. Allowing only children from 15 onwards to enter this field?
Q5:
In your own opinion, what is a normal childhood?
Thank you for your time,
Jason Triggs.
Re: Child actors. Is it right?
Fri, 25 July 2003, 11:46 amJason wrote:
> I am not saying that child performing is bad as I was a child
> performer. i just feel that children under 3 should not be
> allowed to do it as most of the times they are unsure of what
> they are doing as some children under 2 cannot verbalise what
> there needs and wants are.
They can't verbalise, sure. That's a given. It isn't the only way to communicate. If you listen and watch carefully enough, you will see that children can very clearly express like, dislike, anger, frustration and fear. As good parents (in fact good child carers period) we need to be able to see these signals. Enforced child "labour" occurs when these key signals are deliberately missed in prefernce for the carer's opinions. My child is half-way to being three and I would not have any problem letting her act on stage or TV. Yeah, she wouldn't be much use on-stage as she likes to talk to everybody and anybody. however, I would resent being told by some phantom body that it wasn't allowed. Particularly if I could see the she enjoyed it.
Ok, so let's presume that there is a law which restricts the use of children under three. How would you portray the birth of a child in a movie? Even if there was a consensus to impose restrictions on the age of child peformers, I believe it is far to late.
> I do know that child labour laws have improved which is
> fantastic. But also with my presentation i going back into
> the past when the likes of Judy garland and Drew barrymore
> and even Shirley temple were very young. Do you suppose they
> knew what they were doing?
Know, I would probably say that they didn't know exactly what they were doing by definition. I bet they could have told if they liked doing whatever it was they WERE doing. At that age, there is very little need to define things. Life is all interesting and they are learning.
Half the time, I don't think I know what exactly I'm doing either, but I do know if I like it or not, et sic de similibus. Life (I find) is run by facta, non verba (actions, not words). As adults we spend too much time trying to define and classify. Life ws not meant to be easy but it was meant to be enjoyed, by children and adults alike. If someone enjoys what they do, and there is no obvious harm in it, then why try to stop them?
Check out some of the links in my earlier post and you will see that there is a heap of laws and protection agencies (unions) that are working in the best interest of the child.
If exploitation occurs on any level, then a finger should be leveled at the parents (in re Michael Jackson).
Pax vobiscum
Jeff
[%sig%]
> I am not saying that child performing is bad as I was a child
> performer. i just feel that children under 3 should not be
> allowed to do it as most of the times they are unsure of what
> they are doing as some children under 2 cannot verbalise what
> there needs and wants are.
They can't verbalise, sure. That's a given. It isn't the only way to communicate. If you listen and watch carefully enough, you will see that children can very clearly express like, dislike, anger, frustration and fear. As good parents (in fact good child carers period) we need to be able to see these signals. Enforced child "labour" occurs when these key signals are deliberately missed in prefernce for the carer's opinions. My child is half-way to being three and I would not have any problem letting her act on stage or TV. Yeah, she wouldn't be much use on-stage as she likes to talk to everybody and anybody. however, I would resent being told by some phantom body that it wasn't allowed. Particularly if I could see the she enjoyed it.
Ok, so let's presume that there is a law which restricts the use of children under three. How would you portray the birth of a child in a movie? Even if there was a consensus to impose restrictions on the age of child peformers, I believe it is far to late.
> I do know that child labour laws have improved which is
> fantastic. But also with my presentation i going back into
> the past when the likes of Judy garland and Drew barrymore
> and even Shirley temple were very young. Do you suppose they
> knew what they were doing?
Know, I would probably say that they didn't know exactly what they were doing by definition. I bet they could have told if they liked doing whatever it was they WERE doing. At that age, there is very little need to define things. Life is all interesting and they are learning.
Half the time, I don't think I know what exactly I'm doing either, but I do know if I like it or not, et sic de similibus. Life (I find) is run by facta, non verba (actions, not words). As adults we spend too much time trying to define and classify. Life ws not meant to be easy but it was meant to be enjoyed, by children and adults alike. If someone enjoys what they do, and there is no obvious harm in it, then why try to stop them?
Check out some of the links in my earlier post and you will see that there is a heap of laws and protection agencies (unions) that are working in the best interest of the child.
If exploitation occurs on any level, then a finger should be leveled at the parents (in re Michael Jackson).
Pax vobiscum
Jeff
[%sig%]