POV: Dan and Dakotta, and Morality

[juli17 at aol.com]

Steve wrote:
> At the American Chronicle, young writer Samuel Van Eerden has voiced
> his opinions on the corrupting influences of Hollywood, and
> specifically on recent decisions made by Dan Radcliffe and Dakota Fanning.
> 
> Since Dan's role in Equus was recently discussed her, and the
> consensus seemed to be that we wished him well and welcomed the
> change. Samuel Van Eerden has a decidedly different view on the matter.
> 
> http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=12465
> 
> Just passing it along.
> 
> Steve/bboyminn 


Sandy:

Thank you, Steve, for passing this along. For the record, I would like to say 
that I totally agree with the author of this article, and that I, for one, do 
not wish Daniel well in the role, nor do I welcome the change.


Julie:
I question this being the corrupting influence of "Hollywood" (Equus
was a play first wasn't it?). Also I assume the actors and their
parents can make a decision without it having to be blamed on 
Hollywood. They can think for themselves, can't they? ;-) 
 
Beyond that, I'm sorry you don't wish Daniel well in the role
(whatever you mean by that, maybe you hope it will hurt his 
career?). I don't know whether it's a good career move or not,
but I personally have no interest in judging the morality of
others based on their choices, unless those choices specifically
harm other people. And Dan is 17, so I wouldn't really consider
him a child (not in the same league as 12 year old Dakota). 
 
But that's me,
 
Julie 
________________________________________________________________________
Check out AOL.com today. Breaking news, video search, pictures, email and IM. All on demand. Always Free.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]