New Film with Underage Rape Scene

[NightScribe]

Dakota Fanning is appearing in a new film in which her character is raped. Full article here:

"Hounddog Controversy"

Note that the article points out that there is no nudity or graphic/explicit depiction of the assault. My question to these crusaders is whether they're going to ban the Brooke Shields film "Pretty Baby" from ever being shown again, since she was a pre-teen, played a child whore, and was naked throughout huge chunks of the film. This crap reminds me of when Adrian Lyne did the remake of "Lolita" and couldn't find a U.S. distributor, until Showtime stepped up and ran it on cable. I watched the premiere and Lyne taped a segment thanking Showtime for having the stones to air his film (btw, I proudly own it on DVD, guess that makes me some kind of perv).

Sorry, this makes me grumpy.

[Nanaea]

Yes, I saw the article earlier today and had about the same reaction as you did, NightScribe.

[Oishiichan]

I had a similar reaction as well. My husbands exact words about this was quite simply this. "You know we fight for all these freedoms and then we get these idiots who want to take them away because they think they know what is best without even looking at what it is they wish to criticize."

[Guest Agaib]

I really can't object to a film like that unless Dakota was harmed in the making, but thats definitely now the impression I'm getting from the article.

I'm actually a fan of Dakota's work and I've enjoyed her performances every time I see them. She's a much better actress that many others in the industry. Unfortunately, a lot of child stars get kind of messed up by the time they grow up (Michel Jackson). I really hope this doesn't happen to her too.

I'm not sure I'll see the movie Myself, the subject matter would probably disturb Me, but I don't think it sounds as horrible as these conservative groups like to make it out to be. As usual.

[Guest Big Samurai]

One of my colleagues is already taking bets on how soon Ms. Fanning will be in rehab, but ... the freedom of expression in filmmaking is sacrosanct. No, I don't want to see Chloë Sevigny blow Vincent Gallo (The Brown Bunny), and I don't especially want to see Marlon Brando spend a whole film having sex with Maria Schneider (Last Tango In Paris), but the right to make those movies must be preserved.

On Lolita: Read the book, loved the book. Have seen snippets of the 1960s Stanley Kubrick movie with James Mason and Shelley Winters. Have not seen any of the Adrian Lyne movie with Jeremy Irons and Dominique Swain, but it has been highly recommended. That is a very difficult book to put to film, but ... what a powerful story!

[NightScribe]

Big Sam; re: Lolita (sorry if this is getting off topic)

I think Kubrick turned the film into too much of a vehicle for Peter Sellers (which honked me off) but James Mason and Shelley Winters were excellent.

Adrian Lyne's version captured a lot of the essence of the novel and he included little things that only readers of the book would see and say "a-ha!" Like the invalid neighbor Humbert referred to as "Old Miss Opposite" waving from across the street. She's in there.

Back on topic - I agree with you Big Sam. I may not want to see a particular film, but that doesn't mean it should be banned or not made at all. Perfect example for me "Passion of the Christ." Haven't seen it, don't want to. But Gibson had the right to make it and I have the freedom of choice to not watch it.

[redsliver]

I honestly hope this costs you Americans another right or freedom. Teach you a thing or two. Personally I'm gunning for the right to remain silent. That'd be interesting.

[Neito]

Honestly, its a stupid non-controversy. In a month, the public will forget. In six months, any groups will have moved on.

Welcome to the United States of ADD.

[Guest echtrae]

Welcome to the United States of ADD.

I couldn't possibly agree more.

Now, what was I doing?

[Keith Inc.]

I recall about a dozen people telling me not to see 'Last Temptation of Christ,' because of one or another thing the movie showed.

Not a one of them had actually seen the movie, nor were they entirely correct, i found upon seeing it.

I'm never all that impressed with the reports of critics who actually saw a show, much less those that have 'heard' what there is to see.

Okay, okay, your concerns are duly noted. Next?

[Nanaea]

There was an underage rape scene in Prince of Tides as well (three victims, two of them children: one boy, one girl) - did anyone get up in arms over that? Not that I can recall.

[Guest Big Samurai]

That was the 1990s, Ms. 'Naea. Things were so much simpler back then. ... They weren't, of course, but I don't think folks were quite as militant about stuff. Besides, they let Vanilla Ice keep his right to exist. What does that tell you? (Aside from "Go, ninja, go, ninja, go!")

[Guest DarkAvenger]

I honestly hope this costs you Americans another right or freedom. Teach you a thing or two. Personally I'm gunning for the right to remain silent. That'd be interesting.

ROFL and I'd be the very first person to break that law if it came to exist. *snerk* Unfortunately, they're already muzzling us to the point of oppression and frankly, this US Citizen is getting sick of it.

[Guest echtrae]

You're not the only one DA.

[NightScribe]

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

Ben Franklin

Good 'ole Ben, I think he may have been clairvoyant. Think he'd be cringing with all the crap going on nowadays?

[Guest DarkAvenger]

Good 'ole Ben, I think he may have been clairvoyant. Think he'd be cringing with all the crap going on nowadays?

More like rolling in his grave...

[Guest Madapple]

He'd been looking down the bed, at the quivering mass of fellow orgiests, feeling glad to be alive.

Ben liked to get his freak on.

[Iggy_lovechild]

*headdesk*

America is going to drive me mad.

So how much longer do ya think it'll be before the witch burnings/hangings come back?

[StoryJunkie]

we enjoy almost limitless freedom.

history, however, teaches us a caution where the spread of immorality generally precedes the ruin of society. I'm glad she took 10 years to struggle with this issue, for it is no easy responsibility, and as writers of smut we all know deep down that even amoung us there is a higher and lower rank, the child-porn and rape being that low. I've been a part of threads where such things are unanimously derided, and yet we all know that some things cannot remain unwritten no matter how horrible anyone else thinks of them. These things happen. They prey upon our souls as we ruminate upon them. We struggle with how to express it, with the understanding, the entire time, of what the reception will be. The weight of it rests upon one set of shoulders, and it is a mighty weight. We all struggle to woo our muses when they leave us, but what of when they never leave us alone and the subject is one we may abhor? It's just as awful.

As for the actresses and actors, there's no turning back. They'll probably tire of the notoriety after a while, and knowing the media, it's bound to come up again and again.

Then again, perhaps the world will have ended by then, and in that case, I suppose it's neither here nor there.

[foeofthelance]

Well, I will admit to having been shocked at first. Then I continued to read the story (probably not the above link, but the movies review in the NY Post), and was then just slightly annoyed. The film is basically an art piece, and probably wouldn't get any attention if it wasn't A) Dakota Fanning, and Dakota Fanning getting raped. It's being aired at Sundance, home of some of the most spectacular shock-and-awe films, and thus also most of the shortest lived. I was a bit perturbed that this year's theme seemed to be rape of some sort or another, from Morgan Freeman (I think, might be SLJ) chaining Christina Ricci to a radiator to a ficumentary about a gang-rape/orgy that MGM hosted back in the twenties. Ah well, these things are bound to happen every once in a while. If everything was in the same vein as Sideways it is very likely that movie audiences would be even smaller then they are.

Now, as for this being some sort of American crisis...that's probably being as overdramatic as these movies are. Oh loud people have opinions and are ranting about them! They don't want us to see a movie! Woe be free speech! Except that they aren't saying that the movie shouldn't be aired. They are asking people not to see it, hopefully in the result that such movies aren't made. Which seems entirely fair considering a whole slew of things, especially since this probably has religious conotations, at least for them. A good example of a threat to free speech is, say, an unruly mob trying to mug a man who flew across the country to give a speech at their university. So I would not be sounding the call to arms any time soon.

Feel free to carry on. The last time some one offered me a penny for my thoughts, I owed the poor man a refund.

[Guest Alien Pirate Pixagi]

You know... I love this country, really, I do. But, damn, ain't London lookin' good right about now...

I read the whole thing about that movie awhile back when the initial investors pulled out and they had to find a whole other set. The fact of the matter is, no minor is being hurt in real life here by the filming of this movie. In fact, from what I've read in the paper, this could be good for anyone who's been through this. That said, anyone screaming child pornography needs to be stabbed.