****warning*** Shocking child abuse ad

booboo88

http://paul-kramer.blogspot.com/2011/05/wow-anti-child-cruelty-ad-by-ispcc.html


just watched this ad, and to say it broke my hear is an understatemnt, but this DOES happen to children every day

LadyMayBelle

That was launched last month and *I'm pretty sure* there has been a few threads on it.... mainly this one in AH on the debate..
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056265820

It's hard hitting if you excuse the pun, and I found it hard to watch even having worked in the services, but it's happening.

Asphyxia

Saw this before! It makes me nervous seeing it but hopefully it puts the point across!

booboo88

LadyMayBelle wrote: »

That was launched last month and *I'm pretty sure* there has been a few threads on it.... mainly this one in AH on the debate..
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056265820

It's hard hitting if you excuse the pun, and I found it hard to watch even having worked in the services, but it's happening.

Im a wincy bit late, but such poignant message, had to post this.

Was watching mid week(sad i know)
and retired garda put in a complaint as he felt it was too strong a message.
for the love of jesus, child abuse isnt a walk in the park, its meant to hit you(sorry pun) where it hurts

Dudess

Yeah I don't have any time for protestations that it's too harsh - it's probably not even as severe as the hell some poor kiddies are put through.

I don't think it should be shown too early in the day either though - young 'uns don't need to see it. I personally remember as a kid, anything to do with physical abuse of children used to terrify/traumatise me and give me nightmares.

LadyMayBelle

I think a lot of the debate was not necessarily around whether it should be as 'graphic' as it is, but rather to what effect is it been shown; who is the target audience and what is its' aim when it reaches them....

Storminateacup

This absolutely disgsusts me. Not the ad or service itself (well the ad does but not in a "omg how dare they!" way) but the fact that those people DO exist and there are kids that are beaten and frightened, just like that little boy.

It breaks my heart to think how anybody could even consider lifting a hand to such a small innocent child like that, or how any mother could stand back and allow that happen to her own flesh and blood. I'll tell you one thing for nothing, if ANYBODY abused my child like that, I would pull their liver out through their backside.

But sadly - I honestly can't see how much of an effect it will have on people. The people that are genuinely upset about this, would never do something like this.
The people who are doing it - well I don't think they'll be phased by such an ad.

The only good i can see it doing would be it might raise more awareness for childline and how it depends on volunteers (and kudos to anyone working within that service, you're amazing) and funding from donations as because as far as I'm aware teh recieve little help from the government.

It's sad. That little child is so cute too, i want to take him and make sure nothing bad ever happens to him, even though he probably doesn't get abused at all (in real life).

Parents my backside. It's only cowards who do such things.

Dudess

Dudess wrote: »

Yeah I don't have any time for protestations that it's too harsh - it's probably not even as severe as the hell some poor kiddies are put through.

I don't think it should be shown too early in the day either though - young 'uns don't need to see it. I personally remember as a kid, anything to do with physical abuse of children used to terrify/traumatise me and give me nightmares.

Yes but it might also help children realize when one of their friends might also be the subject of violent abuse.

Truley

I've seen that ad before, really shocking. I think it could have a positive message. So much child abuse stems from conditioning rather than cruelty. Parents emulate how they themselves were treated as children, and they don't often realize the actuality of what they're doing. Seeing it played out like in that video is unnerving but could be a big wake up call to some.

I remember listening to a discussion on the radio, years ago, about a mother caught slapping/beating her child on CCTV. A number of listeners called in because they were afraid it was themselves in the video! One caller even remarked 'I thought you'd caught me.' They were genuinely overcome by it!

I always thought this ad was fantastic, not just about child abuse but parenting in general.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KHi2dxSf9hw

Catari Jaguar

I think the ISPCC are amazing, as well as Barnardos... Seriously under staffed and under funded. It's criminal. :mad:

I work with disadvantaged children and ads like that remind me how important it is to care for them and help them. They need adults to protect them and stand up for them and never let them down.

Giselle

Truely, that ad is brilliant.

I'm choked up after watching it, the simple truth in it is very powerful.

The ad that is the subject of the OP is distressing, but necessary, but I also agree it shouldn't be on too early. I know what it would have done to me as a child.

The Sweeper

Hmmmm

I get the point of that ad, but I find myself quite calm watching it - perhaps because of how it's filmed.

THIS ad, however, as part of the anti smoking campaign in Australia - well, I can't watch it.

http://youtu.be/HYjbWHbbjjg

/edit to add I can't embed a youtube video to save me life.

WesternNight

Deleted User wrote: »

Yes but it might also help children realize when one of their friends might also be the subject of violent abuse.

I can see where you're coming from, but it's never the responsibility of children to do something about child abuse or any other violence.

Giselle

The Sweeper wrote: »

Hmmmm

I get the point of that ad, but I find myself quite calm watching it - perhaps because of how it's filmed.

THIS ad, however, as part of the anti smoking campaign in Australia - well, I can't watch it.

http://youtu.be/HYjbWHbbjjg

/edit to add I can't embed a youtube video to save me life.

That poor little man. I can see why you can't watch it.

How can directors get a child to cry on cue? And how can parents put the kid up for an ad when part of the brief is for him to be incredibly distressed?

How ethical is it to produce a piece of film where the child actor is required to look distressed, abused or frightened? What do they say or do to achieve it?

WesternNight

WesternNight wrote: »

I can see where you're coming from, but it's never the responsibility of children to do something about child abuse or any other violence.

Exactly, but if the child happens to mention it to a parent/guardian/other adult, that adult may do something about it.

gargleblaster

Giselle wrote: »

How can directors get a child to cry on cue? And how can parents put the kid up for an ad when part of the brief is for him to be incredibly distressed?

Probably the same way adults do it, they just think of something very sad that facilitates tears. I don't think the children are actually distressed in most cases. In some they might be but that's a subject for another thread.

Little Acorn

Giselle wrote: »

That poor little man. I can see why you can't watch it.

How can directors get a child to cry on cue? And how can parents put the kid up for an ad when part of the brief is for him to be incredibly distressed?

How ethical is it to produce a piece of film where the child actor is required to look distressed, abused or frightened? What do they say or do to achieve it?

I don't know maybe with older kids it might simply be fake tears like water on their cheeks or something, and rubbing their eyes to make them look red.
I just read the info in that vid The Sweeper posted though, and that little kid was really terrified and crying because they got his mum to disappear into the crowd so that he thought he was alone.
They do say that they only let him cry for a few seconds, and that he was being watched at all times by the crew for his safety.
I'm kinda torn about whether that ad is fair or not.
On one hand it's a good ad that gets a message across, but on the other it seems cruel to the kid who was scared and sad even it if it was only for a few seconds.
Couldn't they have just used fake tears, or gotten a slightly older child who might have better acting capabilities to appear afraid and upset, instead of really scaring and making a little boy cry?

Pyr0

gargleblaster wrote: »

I don't think the children are actually distressed in most cases. In some they might be but that's a subject for another thread.

I really, really doubt they actually go out of their way to torment or stress a child enough just to make them cry just to shoot a public advertisement..

And if they do then jaysus!!

gargleblaster

Little Acorn wrote: »

I don't know maybe with older kids it might simply be fake tears like water on their cheeks or something, and rubbing their eyes to make them look red.
I just read the info in that vid The Sweeper posted though, and that little kid was really terrified and crying because they got his mum to disappear into the crowd so that he thought he was alone.
They do say that they only let him cry for a few seconds, and that he was being watched at all times by the crew for his safety.
I'm kinda torn about whether that ad is fair or not.
On one hand it's a good ad that gets a message across, but on the other it seems cruel to the kid who was scared and sad even it if it was only for a few seconds.
Couldn't they have just used fake tears, or gotten a slightly older child who might have better acting capabilities to appear afraid and upset, instead of really scaring and making a little boy cry?

Ok maybe I'm being unreasonable here, but WTF? That just seems horrible! I know there was no real danger, but the poor child didn't.

Little Acorn

gargleblaster wrote: »

Ok maybe I'm being unreasonable here, but WTF? That just seems horrible! I know there was no real danger, but the poor child didn't.

I know, it just seems to me that it was completely unnecessary.

Dudess

Little Acorn wrote: »

I just read the info in that vid The Sweeper posted though, and that little kid was really terrified and crying because they got his mum to disappear into the crowd so that he thought he was alone.
They do say that they only let him cry for a few seconds, and that he was being watched at all times by the crew for his safety.

:mad:

In my opinion that is completely unethical, no two ways about it. Wtf was the mother thinking?!
I can't bring myself to watch it as the sight of a distressed child who's only acting is upsetting enough, not to mind one who's genuinely so...

Ickle Magoo

I dunno, kids cry all the time for all manner of reasons, some get lost from time to time, too - if I thought it might help even a couple of kids avoid getting beaten up on a regular basis I wouldn't have an issue with giving my kid a bit of a start that they'll probably not remember the following week.

Dudess

Yeah true, it's not gonna scar the kid for life. I'm a right softie though...

autonomy

took them hits like a man

LilMissCiara

I'm going to be a bit controversial here.

Yes the ad is dreadful and upsetting but yes it does capture something that happens daily to many children.

However, on the grand scale of things I don't see why it won't be shown on tv. It's not the most shocking thing ever made. In fact, when you compare it with the Drink Driving ad where the young girl is killed (the teddy bear is in goals, brother and sister in garden..) I find it less distressing.

Silverfish

autonomy wrote: »

took them hits like a man

Banned.

verywell

autonomy wrote: »

took them hits like a man

Disgusting

Ickle Magoo

Okay, poster has been dealt with - can contributions from here-in be on-topic and add to the discussion please.

Cheers. :cool:

Eve_Dublin

That was one of the most upsetting things I've ever seen.

I'd have to question the ethics of the making of that ad as well. I remember watching the video for MGMT's Kids single with a friend (male). Neither of us would call ourselves softies but we both found it deeply distressing and sat there in silence for the duration of the video. I don't like seeing a child unnecessarily distressed, particularly for the sake of supposed "art". Pretentious wankerishness gone too far in my opinion. The kid is clearly upset....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fe4EK4HSPkI

I still remember stuff I've seen in real life and on telly from when I was a child and I know it wasn't healthy. I don't see any justification for subjecting a child who doesn't understand the difference between reality and fantasy to that kind of simulation, even if it's for a good cause. I still believed my favourite teddy was real 'till I was 11.

Still though, powerful ad and makes me want to get off my backside and do something or simply donate, which is something, I suppose. Still feela awful for the actor though..

Blowfish

Truley wrote: »

I remember listening to a discussion on the radio, years ago, about a mother caught slapping/beating her child on CCTV. A number of listeners called in because they were afraid it was themselves in the video! One caller even remarked 'I thought you'd caught me.' They were genuinely overcome by it!

Interestingly, Charles Dickens wrote about the exact same thing happening in his preface to Nicholas Nickleby (if you haven't read it, Mr. Squeers runs a boarding school and basically abuses the kids):

Dickens wrote:

It has afforded the Author great amusement and satisfaction, during the progress of this work, to learn, from country friends and from a variety of ludicrous statements concerning himself in provincial newspapers, that more than one Yorkshire schoolmaster lays claim to being the original of Mr. Squeers. One worthy, he has reason to believe, has actually consulted authorities learned in the law, as to his having good grounds on which to rest an action for libel; another, has meditated a journey to London, for the express purpose of committing an assault and battery on his traducer; a third, perfectly remembers being waited on, last January twelve-month, by two gentlemen, one of whom held him in conversation while the other took his likeness; and, although Mr. Squeers has but one eye, and he has two, and the published sketch does not resemble him (whoever he may be) in any other respect, still he and all his friends and neighbours know at once for whom it is meant, because--the character is SO like him.

"While the Author cannot but feel the full force of the compliment thus conveyed to him, he ventures to suggest that these contentions may arise from the fact, that Mr. Squeers is the representative of a class, and not of an individual. Where imposture, ignorance, and brutal cupidity, are the stock in trade of a small body of men, and one is described by these characteristics, all his fellows will recognise something belonging to themselves, and each will have a misgiving that the portrait is his own.

Truley

Blowfish wrote: »

Interestingly, Charles Dickens wrote about the exact same thing happening in his preface to Nicholas Nickleby (if you haven't read it, Mr. Squeers runs a boarding school and basically abuses the kids):

I'm very familiar with Nicholas Nickleby but I wasn't aware of that, wow! Just goes to show the effect of having our actions reflected back on us. I used to work in a creche with an in-built CCTV system so we were being monitored all the time. I'm pretty sure I would cringe if I were to watch some of that footage today. Obviously I'm nothing like what's portrayed in the ad but still, I wasn't always Super-nanny either.

I would imagine for parents with a lot of conditioning, and probably their own inner daemons, might have been that monster in the ad without even realizing it.

iguana

Eve_Dublin wrote: »

I remember watching the video for MGMT's Kids single with a friend (male). Neither of us would call ourselves softies but we both found it deeply distressing and sat there in silence for the duration of the video. I don't like seeing a child unnecessarily distressed, particularly for the sake of supposed "art". Pretentious wankerishness gone too far in my opinion. The kid is clearly upset....

I know very little about how that video is made but most of it is clearly CGI. I'm not just talking about the monster over the cot, for example it looks as if the child (when without the woman) has been superimposed onto the street scene with the people in the masks. In fact it looks so dodgy by today's VFX standards I suspect the made it look a little fake on purpose. When you see a very young crying child on television that is because the whole crew have waited around for ages, with everything ready to go, until the kid actually gets upset by itself. Then the child is filmed as quickly as possible, usually from many angles so the same bits of footage can be used repeatedly.

Eta; Just watched it again and the shots of the crying child on the street are not once done alongside any clear facial prosthetics. The only things he's onscreen with are painted hands which he isn't looking at. We see the monster faces when it cuts to them and then back to the child. It's all just decent editing, 2 obvious split screen shots and the superimposed child/monster. (The child is superimposed as he runs down the street, the monster is superimposed in the crib scene.)

Eve_Dublin

iguana wrote: »

I know very little about how that video is made but most of it is clearly CGI. I'm not just talking about the monster over the cot, for example it looks as if the child (when without the woman) has been superimposed onto the street scene with the people in the masks. In fact it looks so dodgy by today's VFX standards I suspect the made it look a little fake on purpose. When you see a very young crying child on television that is because the whole crew have waited around for ages, with everything ready to go, until the kid actually gets upset by itself. Then the child is filmed as quickly as possible, usually from many angles so the same bits of footage can be used repeatedly.

Eta; Just watched it again and the shots of the crying child on the street are not once done alongside any clear facial prosthetics. The only things he's onscreen with are painted hands which he isn't looking at. We see the monster faces when it cuts to them and then back to the child. It's all just decent editing, 2 obvious split screen shots and the superimposed child/monster. (The child is superimposed as he runs down the street, the monster is superimposed in the crib scene.)

Yeah I should've known in fairness. I'm sure there'd be uproar if it was really shot with scary looking prosthetics. I'm glad as I love that song. Now I can listen to it without having traumatising flashbacks.