Talk:Victor Salva

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed biographical guide to actors and filmmakers on Wikipedia.
This article is part of a WikiProject to improve Wikipedia's articles related to pedophilia. For guidelines see Wikipedia:WikiProject Pedophilia Article Watch and Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.
LGBT Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page.
Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] Comment

I removed information related to expert opinions on recidivism rates of sex offenders. First of all, such information is beyond the scope of this article. Second of all, the information stated was factually incorrect. The Center for Sex Offender Management (US Department of Justice) states in their myth vs fact section: "It is noteworthy that recidivism rates for sex offenders are lower than for the general criminal population." http://www.csom.org/pubs/mythsfacts.html

More detailed information on this can be found in the following document http://www.csom.org/pubs/recidsexof.html. Needless to say, an in-depth analysis of recidivism rates among sex offenders is unnecessary for an article of this nature and the statement that was removed does not in any way diminish the impact of what was said or change the substance of the article at all.


What I don't get is why Salva keeps doing this, but what's with the constant showing of boys with their shirts off in his movies? I mean in almost every one there is a young male walking around with his shirt off. --Jorge Kluney

  • I'm not sure what to think of it. Knowing his history makes me uncomfortable with the male nudity he puts in his films. However, I'd rather see him put this stuff into his films than act on it and cause trouble all over again. Also, it's worth noting that many films--horror movies especially--involve teenage girls (or teenage characters) who are very clearly eroticized, with nudity and everything. I don't see how that's any better or worse. The directors of those films seem to be encouraging male viewers to get aroused by underage girls, the same way Salva's films do the same for boys. The only difference is, we know for sure Salva has acted on it at least once, whereas we often don't know the history of directors who have the girls take off their clothes. VertigoXpress 23:04, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Just learned about this guy

I've been a fan of Powder for forever, and Jeepers Creepers was pretty great too. This guy's made some great films, personally I'm wondering how malicious what he's accused of really was. He shouldn't have broken the law, but how bad was it? Tyciol 20:03, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

How bad was it?! He sexually molested a 12-year old boy. A boy that had been one of his employees on a film. He video taped it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.17.94.41 (talk) 17:36, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

"Molested" - the sexual equivalent of "terrorist" and "illegal alien". Let's get a bit more specific: He gave a young teen (math shows 13, not 12, but either way,) a blow job. What a TERRIBLE frightening event! (Most of us are praying/dreaming for one about that age.) But "molested" is so much more dramatic and implies tremendous violence. Give it a rest already. Was it prudent? Nope. But it IS human, and relatively harmless.

Let's have another look at this situation. A relatively untalented teen actor makes allegation. The man confesses, does a prison sentence, and then returns to work, making a wonderful film called Powder... but the teen not-quite-star, who hasn't done much since, decides to dredge it all up again, to ruin both the man and the film that he and a major studio worked and invested in. Why would he do that? Flailing lack of career? Even further revenge? Just how much and how long should Salva be made to pay (beyond what the courts felt was fair) for giving one lousy blowjob? Salva has made some very good films. Rites of Passage is just about the only film I've seen that doesn't cater to gay stereotypes and allows the gay son to demonstrate integrity from beginning to end. Meanwhile, the "poor victim" has contributed next to nothing in comparison, except to try to milk a blow job for all he can get out of it, and then some. I'm not even going to get into the history and why and how of Salva's interest in younger males, except to point out that he, too, may have been a "victim." So let's put the cross back down and leave off the stakes through the heart, accept that the courts (and thereby society) say that Salva has already long since paid his debt to society, and get a little more real, okay? I'm NOT condoning, just putting this "issue" in fair perspective. --JT 18:32, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

...you can't be serious. I'm glad you think performung underage oral sex is harmless.--CyberGhostface 18:38, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
BTW, I'm all for letting Salva make his films (I myself liked the original Jeepers Creepers) and be treated like a human being, because he did pay his debt to society. But your 'fair' perspective is totally warped, and frankly, disturbs me quite a bit.--CyberGhostface 18:46, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Be "disturbed" all you want. I take exception to your statement "I'm glad you think performing (sic) underage oral sex is harmless." You really need to read better. I clearly stated I don't condone the act, but raise issue with the word choice and hoopla. To the point, what I wrote above was RELATIVELY harmless.
It's still just a blowjob. YOUR perspective is a bit warped in my mind, and all too Judeo-Christian Victorian. Consider this: Just 100 years ago, a young man of 15-16 would be married and perhaps have a child on the way. Do you recall being 12 or older? I don't know your gender, but uhm... "molested" is still a loaded word choice. If it had been a nonconsentual anal entry, or even an oral entry, I might be a bit more tolerant of use of such a term, but we're not talking about something physically painful or intrusive. If this were two adults, you'd be acknowledging that Salva was the passive party in the act. That just doesn't qualify for the connotations of Molested in my book. Then again, I'm not homophobic, and try to put the actual events into a realistic perspective, rather than falling for word choices that sensationalize and imply a violence that wasn't there. If that's disturbing to you, that's your issue. You've agreed that the man should be allowed to continue to work, so why would you condone comments that are obviously intended to damage the man's ability to do so?
I don't condone trying to stop the guy from making a film, but I'm sure as hell not trying to excuse an act of pedophilia by using society's standards from a century ago. If a forty year old man has sex with a nine year old girl, even if she says yes and its not by force, its still illegal. Saying that giving head to an underage boy is harmless, that the perpetrator is an innocent victim, and that boy is trying to milk his trauma to ruin Salva's life is far from a realistic perspective.--CyberGhostface 19:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
I'd really appreciate it if you'd avoid the editorial liberties you've been taking in summarizing my statements. I never said that Salva was "an innocent victim," just as I never said that performing "underage" oral sex is "harmless." It's clear that you're emotionally involved in the issue, but please try to separate that from your writings, especially when the liberties you take misrepresent me and my statements. Please just quote me, if you feel you must do so to make your argument, rather than paraphrasing. Thanks.--JT 19:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Alright, fine. Here are your direct quotes. "...it IS human, and relatively harmless." (What's harmless?) "I'm not even going to get into the history and why and how of Salva's interest in younger males, except to point out that he, too, may have been a "victim." (I admit that I may have interpreted this one wrong. Do you mean to say that he was molested himself?)--CyberGhostface 19:28, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it seems so. He presents plenty of symptoms, even within his body of work, to suggest that he was... and this sort of thing tends to be passed down. --JT 19:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention he was in a position of power over a child. Clearly the situation was damaging enough to the victim that he felt the need to go public, which I'm sure is no easy thing to do in this type of situation, in order to bring attention to the issue. I can't see how this was a publicity stunt on his part. Also, it should be noted the integrity of Disney for hiring a pedophile. Pretty sick. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.224.221.230 (talk) 08:13, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Malicious intent

"Winters, who is urging a boycott, is equally emphatic about Salva. 'I don't care what he does with his life,' he says, 'but he should never be around a child again.'" Ref:http://www.vachss.com/mission/disney.html

Let's have a look at that statement about Powder. Salva wasn't "around a child" in the making of Powder. Does Winters think that Salva should find an all-adult planet to live on?

If Winters really didn't care what Salva does with his life, if Winters wasn't trying to drum up noise (the story made Variety) for himself while getting more hide from Salva, he wouldn't have been passing out flyers that read "Please don't spend your money on this movie. It would just go to line the pockets of this child molester." Clue folks: It would "just" go into the pockets of movie theatres (who employ teens) and Disney, film studios, etc. - the one GNP that is still thriving in this country. So yes, let's lose the beautiful message of Powder and crucify Salva for the rest of his life, let Disney and others eat millions of dollars for having dared to let the man (who paid for his crime) make the film. How short-sighted and knee-jerk can we get?

Again, I'm not condoning Salva's action, but neither am I condoning our reaction and the witchhunts that continue a decade after Salva gave a young teen a blowjob. Perhaps we need to take a look at our own issues and motivations, consider why it's so terribly offensive to us... while making a film about some sickos who carve up people while they're still alive (Hostel, Saw, etc.) is entirely acceptable. --JT 19:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Gee, let me think. Perhaps it's because I think that making a horror movie is acceptable, but actually molesting a child is not. You DO realise that movies are just make-believe, right? Pearce.duncan (talk) 18:53, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Right. As far as I'm concerned, neither Leigh Whannell or James Wan ever engaged in pedophilia. And if you want to talk about 'sick' filmmaking, Jeepers Creepers was pretty gruesome as well...I mean, we had a scene with a monster chewing out the tongue from a cop's severed head. Is that 'acceptable'?--CyberGhostface (talk) 21:46, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Photos of Salva

Salva looks like John Wayne Gacy. I love his films but it's true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.193.101.49 (talk) 16:24, 26 November 2007 (UTC)