Dakota Fanning's role stirs controversy

[SweetPea]

The movie "Psycho" comes to mind for me, it really showed very little yet it still scared the hell out of people. Seems like either they can't or don't know how to make movies like this anymore which is a real shame. Everything has to be graphic and in your face; no imagination required.

Maybe b/c of the reality T.V. craze.

Yes, I agree with you 100%. Reality TV is checking in on everyones failures and humiliations so we can feel good about our lives and think 'we're not that bad.'

I don't need to see violence or gore even for the sake of an artistic movie or otherwise. I don't need to see it because I know it exists.

[Dean James]

ita about some things are better left to the imagination. Situations like rape don't need to rely on every descriptive visual detail.

In Tess of the D'Ubervilles you knew the seduction resulted in rape and it didn't once describe the action, just intoned the act and how it mentally affected the characters afterward.

[Lobelia]

Forgive me, but I have one more thought.

I think this scene will be extremely upsetting for normal people to see, and quite titillating for child molesters. They'll enjoy it. For that reason alone, I wish it wouldn't happen.

Normal people don't need to see a child rape scene in order to be deterred from doing it themselves.

[Dean James]

^^ I agree with you on the child molesters point. Like they need more material to get off on.

[celeb_2006]

Forgive me, but I have one more thought.

I think this scene will be extremely upsetting for normal people to see, and quite titillating for child molesters. They'll enjoy it. For that reason alone, I wish it wouldn't happen.

Normal people don't need to see a child rape scene in order to be deterred from doing it themselves.

I agree, it seems like filmmakers nowadays love to push the boundaries for the sake of "art" and "courage," when in fact all they are attempting to do is create notoriety. For example, it's simply not enough to show people about to be killed and things left to the imagination. Now they have to show every excrutiating closeup of cruelty and bloody gore. Same with rape scenes.

I don't need closeups of girl's faces being raped or the vile act itself to be graphically shown in detail to know that rape is horrific. I don't need motion pictures to "teach" me or show me how monstrous rape is, nor does society.

Also, why is it that actors and actresses feel a need to go all "serious" in order to win oscars or feel that they have to do dramatic roles in order to feel good about themselves? It is so cookie cutter and predictable it is not funny. Do these actors and their agents think that in order to earn 'credibility' they have to portray tortured souls? I think members of the academy need to start broadening their horizons and nominate actors in all sorts of genres, even horror movies or comedy if it is a great performance.

[Picara]

I thought this comment was interesting following an article about the movie.

According to the June 6th issue of Variety, the film is set in the South in 1961 and revolves around a precocious girl who overcomes the negative effects of abuse by singing and dancing like Elvis. In the past two days other news sources have been reporting news of Fannning being naked in the film and of investors backing out and halting production.
I am good friends of people that told me about this early on and refused to work on this film because of the script calling for the graphic portrayal of a child being brutally raped. I am also friends of people less judgmental that worked on the production and they have kept me well informed.
The director's prior movie was about a child being raped. This, her second movie, is about the rape of a child. The script called for a graphic portrayal of the violent act. Basically Dakota Fanning pretended to be raped. And basically that is against the law.
There is a law (NCGS 14-190.16 (a) (4)) in North Carolina which states that it shall be the First Degree Sexual Exploitation of a Minor, a serious Felony Offense in which records, photographs, films, develops, or duplicates for sale or pecuniary gain material that contains a visual representation depicting a minor engaged in sexual activity.
When Hollywood talks a child into taking her clothes off, allowing herself to be pawed, groped, licked, and humped while crying, pleading, struggling and ultimately yielding in front of a camera over and over again, take after take, it is called potential Oscar material, when Chester the Molester does it in his basement he goes to jail. Go figure.
Now that the world (NY Daily News, Orlando Sentinel, ABC News Australia) are beginning to catch on to this story we may see some action by law enforcement.
The investors pulled out of this after reviewing the dailies and objecting to the graphic violence captured on film, just like Ted Turner did when he saw the clips from Bastard out of Carolina, another film shot in Wilmington about a child being raped.
We have been warning folks about this before filming began. But some people do not see a victim, they see a movie star, a cash cow.
I see it as a child pretending to be raped on film for money.
What's wrong with that? Plenty!
Just ask Jodie Foster and Charlize Theron about how traumatic it was for them, as adults, to pretend to be raped.
Better yet why not go up to a 12 year-old girl and her mother in your local shopping mall, ask the girl if she would let you film her naked while she pretended to be raped, check your watch, then wait to see how long it will take for the police to cart your ass off to jail.
It just isn't right

I think this is beyond exploitation, it's child abuse.




http://www.mcnblogs.com/reeler/archi...cars_sake.html

[MrsMarsters]

I do not not ever understand why there even needs to be a rape scene?Is it geared towards children to help them understand what rape is?FACE it, no one is going to completely understand that concept, until it actually happens to them. And I am sick of the oh we have the same garbage being recycled in movies, and this is different. I do not see how this is any different..we all know what rape is, it happens, its sad this is not going to raise any damn awareness, the only thing this movie will raise is money..

I don't care how damn mature she is, she does not have th emotional intelligence of an adult, hell most adults do not even understand it, so we expect someone her age to act out a rape scene, and not be affected by it at all? It is just ..I don't know..the scene is really not needed imo, really what is the point of it?

[Mira]

^^ita

[DitaPage*]

Its not meant to do anything but cause trouble and stir controversy and everyone knows controversy will make the movie successful; just ask Mel Gibson.

[Grimmlok]

The film that's been on everyone's minds here at Sundance has made its debut and screened for the public.

"Hounddog" features 12-year-old Dakota Fanning in a brutal rape scene, which has some outraged, saying this movie has crossed the line of decency and is exploiting Fanning.

I first want to say that I was completely dreading having to watch this film and this particular scene. It's not my cup of tea, but because of the nature of my job I don't always get to choose whom or what I cover.

(That dread was combined with utter frustration because when I arrived at the theater in my rental car, I was told I couldn't park in the lot (where there were plenty of spaces!), and that I needed to drive about a mile for "festival parking" and take the shuttle. Well, when I got to the appropriate lot, I realized I only had eight bucks -- and parking was $10. I searched for street parking, eventually found it, and then hopped on the shuttle, only to watch the driver hop off for a break. The minutes were ticking by.

(Once back at the theater, I was told I couldn't get in because they didn't have a list, I didn't have a ticket and the publicist who confirmed my attendance was nowhere to be found. I think they saw the rising panic in my eyes because they decided to let me in on good faith that I was indeed supposed to be there. All I could do was laugh. One would think it wouldn't be so difficult to see a film at a film festival! But I digress.)

I found the "Hounddog" rape scene very disturbing and unsettling. It's horrific, yes. It's violent, yes. But to my relief, it is very, very brief. The scene only lasts a few seconds and Dakota isn't exposed. Her face, her hand and arm are really the only body parts visible. The implication, of course, of what is happening is nightmarish.

In other suggestive scenes in the film, Dakota is shown wearing nothing but underwear and a thin, small tank top. Not a film that's easy to watch by any stretch of the imagination.

If the film is picked up by a distributor and hits the mainstream (which I expect it will), we will probably be talking about Dakota this time next year during awards season. Her performance is remarkable. The film overall, though, is not superb in my opinion. Sure, at times it was compelling and suspenseful, but there were more moments when it seemed disjointed, even tedious.

Surprisingly Dakota did press at last night's premiere (and yes, she spoke to us -- guess she changed her mind about not doing any interviews with CNN, though I still don't know why she wouldn't in the first place).

Dakota told us that she hopes people reserve judgment until they've seen the movie. She also said that ultimately it was her decision to accept this role since she is the one playing the character.

This isn't the first time a child actress has played a disturbing part, as many of you mentioned in your comments. You may also remember Brooke Shields was 12 years old when she played a prostitute in "Pretty Baby" in 1978, and a young Jodie Foster got an Oscar nomination for playing a child prostitute in the 1976 classic "Taxi Driver."

http://www.cnn.com/SHOWBIZ/blogs/marquee/index.html

Interesting.

[Grimmlok]

also interesting...

"It's not a rape movie," Fanning said Tuesday. "That's not even the point of the film."

"It's not really happening," Fanning said of a rape. "It's a movie, and it's called acting. I'm not going through anything. Cody and Isabelle aren't going through anything, their characters are."

"And for me, when it's done it's done," she said. "I don't even think about it anymore."

[Lobelia]

Well, that's good, but it might not turn out so well for the next one. And who knows if she's even telling the truth. She might be a little trained monkey like Bindi. About her making the choice, well, I suppose if she chooses to smoke crack it would be ok, because it's her choice. All children should be allowed to make major decisions about their lives.

[Grimmlok]

Yes, smoking crack is on the same level as acting in a movie in the decision tree.

[Lobelia]

My point is that a child her age shouldn't have the final say in decisions that affect her well-being.

[Grimmlok]

In the end she decides if she wants to do it or not. If so, then it goes into discussion with parents, director, and a number of other people before it's solidified.