Kids and ‘Happiness’

Should child actors be allowed to act in scenes in movies that, given their ages, they shouldn’t be allowed to see?

When the dog goes flying out the window in “There’s Something About Mary,” no one feels any genuine concern, because we all know that at the end of the movie will be the disclaimer that “no animal was harmed during the making of this film.”

But can the same be said for the child actors in “Happiness”? Throughout the film, I kept thinking about the very real, very young actor playing Dylan Baker’s son who kept having to play tremendously difficult scenes with explicit adult material. I sure as heck wouldn’t have wanted that same little kid sitting next to me in the theater and, I can’t help it, I didn’t want him on that set acting out those scenes either.

I am sure that the parents and the director and the studio teachers were extremely protective of those children. But how can anyone justify letting a 12-year-old act out the emotions of a story that’s so frightening and graphic? Don’t get me wrong. I am the last person to advocate any kind of censorship. But if pushing the envelope means jeopardizing the mental health of your child actors, even a little, I don’t think it’s worth it. And, for me personally, it ruins the movie to be taken out of it with my concern for the actual child up there.

There are plenty of 16-year-olds who can play 12 (just look at “Beverly Hills 90210” or “Party of Five”). Why not use one of them? Or perhaps the Screen Actors Guild should get involved in what kind of material underage kids are allowed to work on and insist on the same disclaimer for kids that animals get.

DONNA MAY, Toluca Lake