Dakota Fanning movie blasted for her rape scene

[michelle]

Child has been around forever. The internet just makes it more accessible to those who have an interest in it. Children have been snatched, raped and murdered forever. We're just so plugged in today that we hear about (almost) every case in real time detail.

I'm hard-pressed to believe that any pedophile who is progressed enough to watch genuine child would be sufficiently aroused by a 10-second shot of Dakota's struggling terrorized face to be truly "drawn" to this film. Neither am I naive enough to think that some pedophiles won't be. I'm just of the opinion that pedophiles are probably drawn to lots of films that I might have an interest in.

I think child is extremely dangerous in the escalation of a pedophile's probability in acting out and harming a child. I don't think a film that contains the sexual assault of a young girl as part of a larger story is. This is just my opinion. I am deeply respectful of your differing opinion. I have no desire to change anyone's mind about it

I have asked before on this thread, but no one has responded - why was there no outrage over John Grisham's A Time to Kill (book and movie) which began with the gang rape of a 10-year-old girl? The father of the girl murdered the two arrested men on the courthouse steps and the rest of the story deals with the aftermath of that event. The book was a runaway bestseller. The movie was a huge hit.

In my opinion, it was a compelling and beautiful story which addressed a number of important issues - and yet, at its core, was the rape of a young girl. Should the story not have been told because of that subject matter? I personally am glad that it was.

I don't know if Houndog will be a story worth telling, but maybe it will. I'm not willing to dismiss it just yet.

A time to Kill is one of our favorite movies.

 

[IdahoMom]

IdahoMom

You didn't and I should have worded my post better to reflect that. You had quoted me a couple posts back so I addressed you and never did make the point I agreed with you about Brit... then I got all heated up about Df. Many sincere apologies. :slap: <--me.

Jubie

You're fine. Thanks for the apology, but none is needed. :blowkiss: This is obviously a delicate subject. One thing I am sure of, though, and that is that we all love and care about children.

Have a good night, Jubie.

 

[southcitymom]

Another artcile about the film:


http://www.cnn.com/2007/SHOWBIZ/Movies/01/23/hounddog.fanning.reut/index.html

One excerpt:

In the rape scene, only Fanning's face, neck, shoulders, hand and foot appear onscreen. Much of the rape is depicted in darkness with flashes of lightning and the sound of Lewellen screaming "stop it, stop it."

Kampmeier told Reuters that the scene onscreen is exactly how the film was shot on a closed set, with a limited crew.

"It's important for people to remember that when you are crafting a film, you are putting images next to each other. It's not like we had Dakota acting out the rape, we didn't," she said. "Dakota and I were there together."

Fanning, who has played kids in numerous Hollywood films like Steven Spielberg's "War of the Worlds," said conjuring up the emotion for the scene was like any other. She added the controversy over it was "blown out of proportion."

"I'm not going through anything like that, it's just my character. It's just another scene and wasn't any different from anything else I've done," Fanning said.

"Dakota was screaming 'Stop it.' She could be screaming 'stop it' about anything," Kampmeier added.

 

[julianne]

From above:

"Dakota was screaming 'Stop it.' She could be screaming 'stop it' about anything," Kampmeier added.

But, she WASN'T screaming "stop it" about ANYTHING...she was pretending to be violently raped. THAT is the whole point.....I think that was a completely ridiculous statement made by Kampmeier, and it reeks of trying to insult the intelligence of all those who think this is exploiting Dakota.

There is obviously differing stories on just how graphic this was---I have read articles that say it wasn't a big deal, and that it isn't as graphic as people say...and it seems to me like all of those articles and interviews are with people who are financially vested to this picture.

From another site:
Quote:
"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 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 off to jail.

It just isn't right! " END QUOTE.

 

[dark_shadows]

From above:

"Dakota was screaming 'Stop it.' She could be screaming 'stop it' about anything," Kampmeier added.

But, she WASN'T screaming "stop it" about ANYTHING...she was pretending to be violently raped. THAT is the whole point.....I think that was a completely ridiculous statement made by Kampmeier, and it reeks of trying to insult the intelligence of all those who think this is exploiting Dakota.

There is obviously differing stories on just how graphic this was---I have read articles that say it wasn't a big deal, and that it isn't as graphic as people say...and it seems to me like all of those articles and interviews are with people who are financially vested to this picture.

From another site:
"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 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 off to jail.

It just isn't right! "

Dear Julianne,
Thank you so much for your post, it is a very informative and appreciated.

Respectfully,
dark_shadows

 

[julianne]

Thanks, d_s

The majority I copied, because it had the actual law regarding this written out and raised some really great points....

Have a wonderul night!:blowkiss:

 

[SeriouslySearching]

Can't say anything unless I am willing to watch the movie to give an informed opinion...which I won't do.

All I can say is that our society shouldn't feed the minds and fantasies of the demented then hide behind artistic license when we do.

 

[dark_shadows]

Thanks, d_s

The majority I copied, because it had the actual law regarding this written out and raised some really great points....

Have a wonderul night!:blowkiss:

Dear Julianne,:blowkiss:
I am thankful that you shared that post with us. Thank you doing that. You are such an asset to this website.
Respectfully,
dark_shadows

 

[Masterj]

Another artcile about the film:


http://www.cnn.com/2007/SHOWBIZ/Movies/01/23/hounddog.fanning.reut/index.html

One excerpt:

In the rape scene, only Fanning's face, neck, shoulders, hand and foot appear onscreen. Much of the rape is depicted in darkness with flashes of lightning and the sound of Lewellen screaming "stop it, stop it."

Kampmeier told Reuters that the scene onscreen is exactly how the film was shot on a closed set, with a limited crew.

"It's important for people to remember that when you are crafting a film, you are putting images next to each other. It's not like we had Dakota acting out the rape, we didn't," she said. "Dakota and I were there together."

I think the bold part is especially important to remember as a lot of people don't know that. I was shocked when I first discovered that. I had previously thought films were shot in sequential order and was so surprised to learn how it is actually done.

 

[southcitymom]

I think the bold part is especially important to remember as a lot of people don't know that. I was shocked when I first discovered that. I had previously thought films were shot in sequential order and was so surprised to learn how it is actually done.

I learned that from an ex-boyfreind who was a film/video geek. It is important to note, particularly as regards the film we are discussing.

 

[FlowerChild]

Dakota NEVER was naked at any time.
There was no simulted rape - there was Dakota screaming "stop it" with a shot of her face and a shot of her hands. No other actor was in the shots. The scene was spliced together from a NUMBER of shots only a couple of which were of Dakota.
Dakota says she is ACTING - and that she doesn't even think about it anymore except as a movie she made. She said other parts she has played frightened and bothered her more.


The movie has much more to do with poor parenting, and children who are neglected and ignored by alcoholic and emotionally cold, uncaring parents and family members. Everything that happens to Dakota's character is a direct result of her lack of parenting and her alcoholic, uncaring home life. Her survival in ALL of it is due to her inner strength and spirit. Overcoming the bad things that happened are the story - the bad things merely background of the character - NOT the story.

Hounddog is NOT a movie about a 12 year old girl being raped, despite the religious and right wing critics trying to make it a movie about that.

The subject matter is mature - so only mature people should go see it. If the subject matter offends you, don't see it. It has already been stated that no laws or statutes were violated in the making of the movie - that is a non-starter. Comes down to choice - don't agree, don't see it. No-one is going to force anyone. In turn, I wish people would please stop trying to FORCE their choices onto others. The movie is made, the arguments about that are moot. Now there is just a movie and personal choice - just the way it should be.

 

[Jeana (DP)]

The movie has much more to do with poor parenting, and children who are neglected and ignored by alcoholic and emotionally cold, uncaring parents and family members. Everything that happens to Dakota's character is a direct result of her lack of parenting and her alcoholic, uncaring home life. Her survival in ALL of it is due to her inner strength and spirit. Overcoming the bad things that happened are the story - the bad things merely background of the character - NOT the story.

Sounds like life imitating "art," huh? By the way, FlowerChild, have you seen the movie?

 

[Masterj]

Sounds like life imitating "art," huh? By the way, FlowerChild, have you seen the movie?

Jeana, come on! You don't agree with their decision so now her parents are automatically bad parents????? I don't see any evidence that they are bad parents, just different than you, perhaps.

 

[Jeana (DP)]

Jeana, come on! You don't agree with their decision so now her parents are automatically bad parents????? I don't see any evidence that they are bad parents, just different than you, perhaps.

Let's just say that I question their judgment.

 

[FlowerChild]

Sounds like life imitating "art," huh? By the way, FlowerChild, have you seen the movie?

Well, since I am not at the Sundance Film Festival - which is the only place it has been shown to the public and the film's premier, I have not - but I have spoken with someone who HAS seen it. The story is a semi-autobiographical story written by (and lived by) the director.

Here is what Dakota Fanning herself said about the film and and it's critics:
SUNDANCE-FANNING

The only people who have commented in a negative manner have not seen the film either. It's a movie but based, in part, on a true story. The point of the film is survival and empowering girls and women who have been victimized in various ways. Set in the 50's it spotlights that not much has changed in how we view female victims, regardless of age or circumstance. Based on the hooplah and bashing by people who have NOT seen the movie, I would say we are still somewhere in the "dark ages" on this subject.

And as far as protecting Dakota - she says herself- she was well taken care of during filming and is insulted people are attacking her family over this.

 

[julianne]

Well, since I am not at the Sundance Film Festival - which is the only place it has been shown to the public and the film's premier, I have not - but I have spoken with someone who HAS seen it. The story is a semi-autobiographical story written by (and lived by) the director.

Here is what Dakota Fanning herself said about the film and and it's critics:
SUNDANCE-FANNING

The only people who have commented in a negative manner have not seen the film either. It's a movie but based, in part, on a true story. The point of the film is survival and empowering girls and women who have been victimized in various ways. Set in the 50's it spotlights that not much has changed in how we view female victims, regardless of age or circumstance. Based on the hooplah and bashing by people who have NOT seen the movie, I would say we are still somewhere in the "dark ages" on this subject.

And as far as protecting Dakota - she says herself- she was well taken care of during filming and is insulted people are attacking her family over this.

I think it's ludicrous to call those who are "bashing" (your word) the violent rape of a little girl as being "in the dark ages"---just as it would be ludicrous for me to say the supporters of this scene are child pervs. And, that isn't true where you say that the only people commenting negatively haven't seen the movie. Brooke Anderson, a CNN reporter watched the movie at the film festival. She said that it the highly ridiculed "rape scene" wasn't as graphic as she thought it would be and that it didn't last very long, but she said it was extremely difficult to watch---specifically disturbing, unsettling, and horrific. She said that young Dakota wasn't naked (thankfully!) but that the implication of what was happening was nightmarish. Makes me wonder if one takes all of that away from the movie, what in the world was Dakota feeling while playing the victim? Brooke said that while some parts were compelling and suspenseful, there were more moments that were "disjointed" and "tedious" and overall, wasn't superb.

 

[LovelyPigeon]

There's no actual rape scene. Dakota wasn't subjected to a pretend rape scene. Editing magic suggests the "rape scene", but there's not graphic rape:

Fanning speaks up on rape scene
By Anthony Breznican, USA TODAY
PARK CITY, Utah — The harsh complaints over Dakota Fanning's drama Hounddog may have caused her more distress than the rape scene that triggered the uproar.
A day after the film's debut at the Sundance Film Festival here, the controversy was beginning to calm as many of the worst fears about the movie were proved wrong.

But Fanning, co-star Robin Wright Penn and writer/director Deborah Kampmeier were still noticeably on edge Tuesday, acknowledging that months of criticism by people who had not seen the film has made defensiveness their default position.

Some who bashed the film's concept "were attacking my family and me, and that's where it got too far," says Fanning, 12, jabbing her finger into a table at a restaurant. "Pretty much everybody who talked about it attacked my mother, which I did not appreciate. That was extremely uncalled for and hurtful."--->>

The scene in question involves a boy in his late teens who lures Fanning's character to an abandoned shack with promises of Elvis Presley tickets. The scene lasts less than a minute, and no simulation of a sex act is depicted on camera. The viewer sees flashes of Dakota's face, hand and foot as she falls, but the camera looks away as she begins to cry. No nudity is shown, though all involved in the movie agree it is a disturbing sequence.

Fanning, however, said the scene was not disturbing to shoot. She filmed the close-ups of her face alone, with the direction: Hold your breath, wait, now gasp. --->> http://www.usatoday.com/life/movies/news/2007-01-23-fanning-hounddog_x.htm

I think some of the anger and angst over Dakota's well being could be put to better use by hoping that young people and parents who see this movie will be more aware of their children's vulnerablities and any tell-tale signs that children have been abused so that action can be taken to prevent child abuse and rape.

 

[Peter Hamilton]

lol--The film was made so parents can recognize the signs telling them their kid was raped? You must think all parents are morons not to recognize the signs--What a dumb stupid movie

 

[southcitymom]

lol--The film was made so parents can recognize the signs telling them their kid was raped? You must think all parents are morons not to recognize the signs--What a dumb stupid movie

No one has opined that this was the reason the film was made.

But I will opine that you are being rude to LovelyPigeon.

And some might opine that calling a movie you've never seen dumb and stupid is, well, dumb and stupid.

 

[Details]

Not about this movie in particular....


but we've seen plenty of cases here where parents apparently didn't recognize the signs that their little girl had been raped.


I don't think I really buy it as a motive for this movie including the rape scene (however discrete it may be), but showing the signs is a good thing on the whole.