A lot has been said about the new film "Hounddog", starring child actress Dakota Fanning. In fact, almost everything being said about it now, is exactly what was said about it months ago... before the Sundance festival.
If we are fighting the topic of the movie, than we should be asking about where the rage was over many other movies, after all Hollywood has been putting kids in sexually suggestive roles for years. Man in the Moon portrays a 14 year old (played by Reese Witherspoon) head over heels for an older boy- and the sexual tension within the movie is clearly predominate in comparison to everything else happening on the screen. And then there is "Interview with the Vampire", which has a child star falling in love with an adult. The situation here is quite different- as young Kirsten Dunst's character is a few hundred years old, while still in the body of a very young girl. Yet, it didn't stop people from looking twice when the then 12 year old shared an on screen kiss with Brad Pitt. If it's not the subject, but the actual stimulated act of sexual abuse that all the fuss is about- well as Steve Huff mentioned in a recent post, the stimulated rape of a child on screen is nothing new- Bastard Out of Carolina included various scenes of abuse back in 1996. So what really is at issue here?
Dakota Fanning has found herself in a particularly odd position, she is being placed under the watchful eyes of both the movie industry- and the rest of the world. And, a lot is being said about her current role, and the movie itself.
FoxNews isn't exactly nice in it's latest report:
There's even a Religious group calling to boycott Hounddog, while Fanning herself is just "mad" about all the comments and complaints.
But what really does the movie show, and what really does it say about the standards of the movie making world? Back to the Fox News Story on it, where we get a small glimpse of what at least one scene shows:
Paul Petersen touches upon the movie, and the effects of it- not just on the child stars involved but in regards to Hollywood's reaction to such situations in his multi part series "A Minor Consideration".
But, no matter what anyone says- we are back to the question of what it is that we really object to- and why out of all the films involving the sexual exploitation of children, this is the one that has received the highest level of objection.
One could easily assume it might have something to do the old anti Hollywood feeling of "You make millions to play a _______ (fill in the blank), while I make next to nothing being a _________ (fill it in with the same word). Could it be that we object to Fanning making money playing a victim of childhood rape while others who actually survive it struggle to heal? I doubt it.
Can we chalk it up to a stimulated act really being just that offensive? I don't think so- as mentioned before, the on screen acting out of a child rape is nothing new to any of us.
Let's go back to looking at the movie itself:
I'm left to wonder: is our objection to this film that we feel as if Hollywood is attempting to mainstream the sexual exploitation and victimization of children for the sheer benefit of the almighty dollar?
Or, worse maybe it's knowing that this sort of thinking is out there that really scares us (from the pedologs)
First, for as much as the pedophiles insist that "they" would never hurt a child- I'm curious as to why on earth they would include the violent rape of a child in "intergenerational relationships". After all, a relationship is most often referred to as "A romantic or sexual involvement.", and rape isn't anything that I feel would be defined as a relationship at all. And on a personal note- I wouldn't be settling for anything remotely violent as a symbol of a relationship that I was involved in. But then again- I think most of us would agree that most arguments passed around in the pedo crowd are objectionable- and seeing as they are a group of people claiming the that sexual exploitation of a child isn't a bad thing- maybe they really don't care that a violent rape is being used to define their much sought after "intergenerational relationship".
Second, and what bothers me in part about this movie- it's the stimulated act of rape upon a child, without thought about the actual rapes of other children. It minimized the actual effects of childhood sexual abuse, while laying a carpet down for those who would justify such offense betrayals because they believe that the role is "Oscar" worthy.
Not, a movie that can bring understand and enlightenment to the horrible effects and emotional trauma of childhood abuse. Not a movie about the extreme ability for a child to recover from devastating events in her life.
Nope, it's a just movie that could win her an Oscar.
Here's an idea for Hollywood- if you are going to make a movie depicting horrible situations that millions of children are forced to suffer through in their lifetimes, how about doing it in order to bring awareness to the plight of these children, rather than stimulating a rape on a child for a little gold man?
There are other reasons I disagree with, not the movie, but the need to had certain scenes in the movie and while I could spend all day telling you how much I object this all of this- it's nothing that hasn't already been said a million times by a million people. And, I doubt that it would sway any already developed thoughts on the movie to begin with.
However, I'd like to hear what some of you think- which arguments for or against the movie stand out the most in your minds.
Categories: predators, molesters,
If we are fighting the topic of the movie, than we should be asking about where the rage was over many other movies, after all Hollywood has been putting kids in sexually suggestive roles for years. Man in the Moon portrays a 14 year old (played by Reese Witherspoon) head over heels for an older boy- and the sexual tension within the movie is clearly predominate in comparison to everything else happening on the screen. And then there is "Interview with the Vampire", which has a child star falling in love with an adult. The situation here is quite different- as young Kirsten Dunst's character is a few hundred years old, while still in the body of a very young girl. Yet, it didn't stop people from looking twice when the then 12 year old shared an on screen kiss with Brad Pitt. If it's not the subject, but the actual stimulated act of sexual abuse that all the fuss is about- well as Steve Huff mentioned in a recent post, the stimulated rape of a child on screen is nothing new- Bastard Out of Carolina included various scenes of abuse back in 1996. So what really is at issue here?
Dakota Fanning has found herself in a particularly odd position, she is being placed under the watchful eyes of both the movie industry- and the rest of the world. And, a lot is being said about her current role, and the movie itself.
FoxNews isn't exactly nice in it's latest report:
"Hounddog," the simply awful movie in which 12-year-old Dakota Fanning’s character is raped, has no buyers.
"No one wants it after the terrible reviews," one distributor told me, just as we were sitting down to see another disaster, J.P. Schaefer’s "Chapter 27."
There's even a Religious group calling to boycott Hounddog, while Fanning herself is just "mad" about all the comments and complaints.
But what really does the movie show, and what really does it say about the standards of the movie making world? Back to the Fox News Story on it, where we get a small glimpse of what at least one scene shows:
12-year-old Cody Hanford, who plays Fanning’s boyfriend in the provocative and poorly written outing, [...] In the film, his character lures Fanning’s into a barn and then watches as she’s raped. Hanford and Fanning also have numerous kissing scenes, some in which they’re half-dressed.
Paul Petersen touches upon the movie, and the effects of it- not just on the child stars involved but in regards to Hollywood's reaction to such situations in his multi part series "A Minor Consideration".
An insidious evil is spreading throughout Hollywood, the town that raised and trained me as a boy for a career that would not exist for me as a man. The exploitation of children, which Hollywood both employs and to which they market, has sunk to another mindless low point with the announcement that 12 year-old Dakota Fanning will portray a pre-adolescent rape victim in the movie, "Hound Dog," an independent film alleged to feature Dakota, not yet in her teens, totally naked and actually assaulted on film in a realistic portrait of the rape that spins her into a fantasy world centered on Elvis Presley.
But, no matter what anyone says- we are back to the question of what it is that we really object to- and why out of all the films involving the sexual exploitation of children, this is the one that has received the highest level of objection.
One could easily assume it might have something to do the old anti Hollywood feeling of "You make millions to play a _______ (fill in the blank), while I make next to nothing being a _________ (fill it in with the same word). Could it be that we object to Fanning making money playing a victim of childhood rape while others who actually survive it struggle to heal? I doubt it.
Can we chalk it up to a stimulated act really being just that offensive? I don't think so- as mentioned before, the on screen acting out of a child rape is nothing new to any of us.
Let's go back to looking at the movie itself:
FULL STORY Right away, I will tell you: 12-year-old Dakota Fanning plays a girl who endures a graphically suggested rape. If that’s not enough, she is also filmed sleeping dreamily while a half dozen real snakes slither all over her.
The rape scene, no matter how it’s spun, is disturbing and unsettling in fictional terms. In real life, though, it’s creepier to think that Dakota’s parents considered this a scene that was appropriate for their daughter.
Of course, when you meet Dakota, she is unusually mature and very precocious. Maybe it’s hard for those around her to recognize that she is only 12, and that though she understands “Hounddog” is fiction, it’s nevertheless happening to her, as it were.
“Hounddog” takes place in rural Tennessee around 1955, when Elvis Presley is just taking off. Dakota’s character, Lewellen, is obsessed with Elvis and sings his songs to anyone who asks her to.
That her moves are suggestive is another matter altogether. The director seems to be implying that Lewellen is almost asking for her rape by a 20-year-old boy who delivers the family’s milk.
It’s either that or Lewellen should be allowed to act seductively without fear of being attacked. Either way, the arguments do not stand up.
A lot of “Hounddog” sounds like it’s an entry in a bad Faulkner contest anyway. All the clichés are there: The runaway mother (or aunt in this case) is played by Robin Wright Penn. David Morse is the hick father with a zero IQ; Piper Laurie, so way over the top it’s not funny, is the sensible, salty grandmother who’s raising the kid.
I'm left to wonder: is our objection to this film that we feel as if Hollywood is attempting to mainstream the sexual exploitation and victimization of children for the sheer benefit of the almighty dollar?
Or, worse maybe it's knowing that this sort of thinking is out there that really scares us (from the pedologs)
Excellent review of the new upcoming DK feature film Hounddog. Can't wait to see it, though I am sure the rape scene will upset me.
What I would really like to see made (maybe with Dakota) is a well-made feature film about a loving (even sexual), consensual intergenerational relationship between a man and a young girl.
Man Without A Face could have been such a film for a man/boy relationship, but the movie was not faithful to the book (written by a woman). For A Lost Soldier was well done, but I wish the relationship had not ended badly. In the beginning of The Incredible True Adventure of Two Girls in Love one of the girls is involved with an adult woman (funny how no one--to my knowledge--has made an issue of that), but it is a brief moment in the film. Bastard Out of Carolina also involved the rape of a young girl; excellent film, though. It seems like negative perspectives and violence are all we can get right now when it comes to intergenerational relationships.
First, for as much as the pedophiles insist that "they" would never hurt a child- I'm curious as to why on earth they would include the violent rape of a child in "intergenerational relationships". After all, a relationship is most often referred to as "A romantic or sexual involvement.", and rape isn't anything that I feel would be defined as a relationship at all. And on a personal note- I wouldn't be settling for anything remotely violent as a symbol of a relationship that I was involved in. But then again- I think most of us would agree that most arguments passed around in the pedo crowd are objectionable- and seeing as they are a group of people claiming the that sexual exploitation of a child isn't a bad thing- maybe they really don't care that a violent rape is being used to define their much sought after "intergenerational relationship".
Second, and what bothers me in part about this movie- it's the stimulated act of rape upon a child, without thought about the actual rapes of other children. It minimized the actual effects of childhood sexual abuse, while laying a carpet down for those who would justify such offense betrayals because they believe that the role is "Oscar" worthy.
Fanning's mother, Joy, and her Hollywood agent, Cindy Osbrink, see the movie as a possible Oscar vehicle for the pint-size star.
Not, a movie that can bring understand and enlightenment to the horrible effects and emotional trauma of childhood abuse. Not a movie about the extreme ability for a child to recover from devastating events in her life.
Nope, it's a just movie that could win her an Oscar.
Here's an idea for Hollywood- if you are going to make a movie depicting horrible situations that millions of children are forced to suffer through in their lifetimes, how about doing it in order to bring awareness to the plight of these children, rather than stimulating a rape on a child for a little gold man?
There are other reasons I disagree with, not the movie, but the need to had certain scenes in the movie and while I could spend all day telling you how much I object this all of this- it's nothing that hasn't already been said a million times by a million people. And, I doubt that it would sway any already developed thoughts on the movie to begin with.
However, I'd like to hear what some of you think- which arguments for or against the movie stand out the most in your minds.
Categories: predators, molesters,