Child actors. Is it right?

Hello,

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.

Jason wrote:
>
>
> Q1:
> Do you believe its right for mothers to push their children,
> some as young as 2 into modeling and talent agency's?
>
> Q3:
> Do you think it's right for theatre companies to use children
> to rope in profit. Eg. Annie, Oliver, Sound of Music.
>

Interesting use of language here Jason. I'm guessing this is not a totally unbaised report?

Melissa

Jason wrote:
> Q1:
> Do you believe its right for mothers to push their children,
> some as young as 2 into modeling and talent agency's?

What do you define as pushing? This is a very thin line. I believe there is certainly a level of moderation that can be achieved, but who is to judge this? I have 22 month old daughter myself and she is very much the performer. How far do I go before I am considered Pushy, or do I sit back and do nothing because I don't want anyone to judge me as a parent?

Personally, being pushy is to not listen to your child and instead to your own thoughts and force a child into something they do not want.

> Q2:
> At what age do you belive children should be allowed to work
> in the arts industry?

Any age they want to. From the day they can start to articulate desires and feelings (and this is pretty early, trust me) children are more than capable of making decisions for themselves. Parents have the responsibility to care for their children and to help them grow and develop. This means that they are there to articulate and discover the opinions of the child. Then they must also protect their off-spring.

By asking the industry to "impose" restrictions on what some parents may consider fair and OK is bound to invite agrument. You in effect remove a choice that some children and parents WOULD desire.

> Q3:
> Do you think it's right for theatre companies to use children
> to rope in profit. Eg. Annie, Oliver, Sound of Music.

Really. Do they now. I was not aware that such a blanket statement was either fair or reasonable. Who says that theatres do this anyway? Maybe some do. Others I am sure are primarially concerned with putting on a good show. Besides, as far as I know, the pay for child performers is just as good, if not better than adult performers so there wouldn't be much profit in it anyway. You get better profit from supernumerary actors regardless of age.

Also, consider community theatre where there are no paid performers at all. Where's the profit here? I think you over estimate the level of exploitation in this industry.

> Q4:
> Should we wipe out child performing all together in
> television/theatre. Allowing only children from 15 onwards to
> enter this field?

No, me iudice. Why 15? Why not make the legal age to vote?

> Q5:
> In your own opinion, what is a normal childhood?

There is no such thing. That is exactly the same as asking what is normal for anybody. Normal assumes that there is a standard. The real world does not have standards. Besides normal is boring.

I hope that your questions have been designed to provoke responces because they certainly have provoked me. ;-)

I do not deny that there are pushy parents out there in the real world. I do not deny that there are some theatrical companies who "exploit" the young. However, many of your questions query the subjectivity of perception. You ask for black and white answers in a world full of shades of grey.

Jeff "Greyed Out" Watkins

[%sig%]

Jason wrote:
>
>
> Q2:
> At what age do you believe children should be allowed to work
> in the arts industry?
>



And at what age should they stop, and grow up?

(....34 and a half and still managing to be pretty childish.....)


Craig

[%sig%]

Melissa Merchant wrote:
>
> Jason wrote:
> >
> >
> > Q1:
> > Do you believe its right for mothers to push their children,
> > some as young as 2 into modeling and talent agency's?
> >
> > Q3:
> > Do you think it's right for theatre companies to use children
> > to rope in profit. Eg. Annie, Oliver, Sound of Music.
> >
>
> Interesting use of language here Jason. I'm guessing this is
> not a totally unbaised report?
>
> Melissa


Well done on pointing that one out, Mel.

It does sound like our Mr Triggs has a particular barrow to push...

As part of a theatre that is currently thinking of putting on one of the shows listed in Q3, I can assure you that "Roping in the profits" was not one of the considerations (well, no more so than any other musical which doesn't have a cast of thousands of kids). Bowing to the pressure of the flood of requests from our younger members to do a show that they could be in would be closer to the truth.

Would be very interested for Mr Triggs to publish his report on this website to see how accurate and/or unbiased it actually is after it is finished.

Sorry, dude...
You should have worked out by now that most actors are either thick as two short planks or hyper-intelligent, and the hyper-intelligent ones are going to pounce on something like the wording of your questions like a pack of hyeneas to an ailing wildebeest.

I'm sure if you re formulate your questions, you'll end up with a lot nicer response.

Paul Treasure

It is true, perhaps I should have planned my questions more carefully. Perhaps I am to young, being only 19 to fully understand what goes through a child's mind at this time.

I am a first year student studying a diploma of children's services. The topic I have chosen to do a presentation on was child performers. All the topics that students picked out have to be based around the child's social and emotional development.

I am very willing to read what others think are better question becuase I am sure that they are right. But with ever piece someone has to take a side.

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.

With my prsentation I want to go on the angle that starting a performing career from an early age (0-4) can have effects when growing up.

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?

I leave it to you to respond if you wish.

Jason Triggs.

Here are some links to examples of what other people, even legal establishments think on the topic of Child Performers;

http://www.aftra.org/resources/pr/0302/child.html

http://www.aftra.org/resources/pr/0603/young.html

http://www.cf.ac.uk/news/cardiff_news/vol7no7/children.html

http://www.ci.nyc.ny.us/html/acs/html/support/support_childperformers_guide.html

http://www.ilo.org/public/english/dialogue/sector/papers/media/wp186.pdf

The last is a PDF document that is a report on Child Performers. This might prove very useful to you.

Jeff "Hopefully Helpfull" Watkins

[%sig%]

Jason 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%]

Jeff Watkins wrote:

> 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 agree entirely. To change the rules now would have an adverse affect on the entertainment industry. How would a writer be able portray, for example, a scene where a man (or now days, even a woman) is being torn away from their 2 year old son or daughter due to conscription? Many of the writing techniques used (that is, to evoke feelings of sympathy or empathy) hinge on the fact that children are used.

Also (this is directed to Jason), you stated that you, too, were a child performer. From that perspective, what exactly is your view on the topic at hand? Did you enjoy what you were doing, or where you forced into it by an all-knowing and all-controlling parent? Certainly you would have a view yourself.

(Back to Jeff) I concur once more - if a child is being forced into something that we can see, plain as day, that they do not want to do, the buck stops with their parents. A producer can request a child being used in an ad/tv show/theatre production, but ultimately it is the parent who understands their childs emotions and makes the decision. Exploitation is a problem that starts at home.

Cheers
Alan

"Sex is like air. It isn't important unless you aren't getting any."
- Anonymous (for obvious reasons)

There's another point which I think Jason is missing: the distinction between exploitation in having a child actor, and exploitation in having all the publicity and promo-work that surrounds 'big-time' child actors in Hollywood.

Now frankly, if you're studying the latter type of exploitation, then you are looking at the wrong board in the wrong part of the acting industry in the wrong country.

Obviously I'm not claiming any kind of expertise in child psychology. However, I struggle to think ofwell-known examples of child-actor exploitation where the allegations of abuse centered around the performance itself. Most of the 'Jackson Five' type stories you here either involve exploitation over the things that surround big-time performance - ie the money and publicity - OR involve parents who are physically or emotionally abusive outside of (and predating) their children's performing lives.

In addition, you have to wonder how many of the 'child-star-turned-drug-addled-mess' cases are caused by the child performing at a young age, and how many are caused by the enormous amounts of money, fame and lifestyle binges that Hollywood gives to those who 'succeed', at an age where they can't handle it.

Maybe if you do your study focusing on 'average' child actors rather than the handful of megastars, you might come to very different conclusions,

Cheersm
Craig

Child Actors? What about children who play sport? What about Tiger Woods? He started at a young age? There are no complaints about his parents being pushy, even thought they introduced him to the sport. What about parents who start teaching their kids before they can even talk just so they can have a smart child? You can't cover children in cotton wool, and not expose them to anything in the world for a fear of being pushy. Some parents over do it, for sure. But it's not just in the entertainment industry, and you can't punish children by withholding them from what they enjoy, just because of a minority of pushy parents.