The Wilmington DA has looked the film and said no laws were broken in the filming of the movie. I know there is a mutual masturbation scene and some other more mature content.IdahoMom said:I have tried very hard to NOT rush to judgement on this until I have more information from all sides, but, I have been reading at another forum I belong to and one poster there has read the script. She said that there is other objectionable content involving Dakota in the script. I don't know if those things made into the film or not. If the things I'm reading are indeed true, Dakota's parents, agent and manager will be answering to some other things shortly.
OK...but there is a fine line there between what is legal (and taking it right up to the point where it has to be investigated) and offensive content involving a child. Please keep in mind that I have waited for more facts. The content that I'm referring to may have been cut because of the controversy already surrounding this film. My question is: Dakota Fanning (by DK, I mean Dakota and her parents and handlers, too) gets to pick and choose what projects she/they are involved in. If what I read about the script is true indeed, why didn't they pass on this one?southcitymom said:
Her "people", LOL, specifically her mother, has been quoted many times as saying that she wanted Dakota to get an Oscar, and that she thought this film was the way to get it. Translation: $$$$ Fatter wallets for all! $$$$$IdahoMom said:
I've heard this, but never seen a link saying her mothyer said this even once much less numerous times. There's no evidence that indicates that Dakota's family considers her or uses her as a cash cow. So this particular stone (which would be easy to throw at any parent of a child star) doesn't seem to have much weight behind it.julianne said:
From a few interviews I've read, DK and her people get to pick and choose the projects she gets involved it. She has said that she wanted to do this movie because she felt like it was a movie about survivors and surviving. She felt like the character was not definied by the things that had happened to her or her negative life circumstances and that her character rose above these things to live and thrive and flourish. So that's my understanding of DK's interpretation of the film. And that's not a bad message for a movie to send - ever - in my opinion.IdahoMom said:
I do know that Cindy Osbrink, her agent, has reportedly said she sees this as a good vehicle for Dakota to win an Oscar. I found this article- it has some other info I've heard, regarding the backers of the film, etc, plus it mentions that Dakota's mom thinks this could win her an Oscar (although she isn't directly quoted here):southcitymom said:
Good question. It seems like alot of actors try to get away from the "Disney-type" roles, like they think they'll be taken more seriously if they do.eve said:
Thanks - yes, I'm not suprised that her agent and Mom think it might be an Oscar-worthy role but that doesn't convince me that they only decided she should take it based on that fact and the fact that that would make her more money.IdahoMom said:
For all of this, it looks like Houndog is getting terrible reviews and probably won't find a buyer!eve said:
Not to be difficult and we'll probably never see this film to know, but movies can show a person overcoming hardships and terrible life circumstances without having to wrap all the pieces of pain up directly. It sounds like the movie writer/director had a story to tell about being a survivor, but it doesn't sound like she told it very well. Still, I'm hard-pressed to believe such a scene was included just for shock value.julianne said:
