The sundance film festival previewed hounddog, which features a graphic rape scene with 12 year old actress Dakota Fanning. Jodie Foster and Brooke Shields have played similar controversial roles in the past.

Questions for debate:

1.)Are the parents guilty of neglect in allowing their daughter to act out such a thing? How is this any different than what a criminal would attempt to act out?

2.)Do such films only serve to tantalize a bad crime(i.e.-rape) by portraying it on film that criminals may see?

3.)Where do you draw the line on young actors/actresses and emotional/criminal scenes?

4.)Is worrying about this kind of thing just too prudish?

Well that's just silly. No DF parent's are guilty of no such thing. Um, unless there's something I missed DF is not actually raped.

Film has been known to make stupid people try stupid things. I'm not sure rape is one of them, but I can't prove it isn't. I think DVD versions of The Program now omit a scent wherein teens lay in the center of the road because particularly stupid teens couldn't discern fiction from something really stupid to do in the real world.

Hmmm. I'd probably want my daughter to avoid them but I'm not sure it's my line to draw.

No think it's good to have some sense of, Hey I think this is wrong. I think it is bad to attempt to force your idea on the rest of the world.

I have a similar line of questioning when it comes to Computer Generate Images. CGI pornography could serve the same purpose and not have any actual humans demeaned or diseased. However what of CGI pedophilia? Should that be banned? I mean they're not REALLY children they're drawings, art. Well then what about a still drawing of pedophilia? What about a paragraph?

Don't for a second take this to mean that I don't want the Death Penalty for pedophiles. I do. However, what of art? Do I want a Government telling me what art can be? I think I don't. Even if the art repulses me. And, I don't want to pay for any art through my tax dollars. If it's good people will pay for it with their money.

1.)Are the parents guilty of neglect in allowing their daughter to act out such a thing? How is this any different than what a criminal would attempt to act out?

I'm sure the movie studio-types made sure everything was considered "legal". This is quite different than what a criminal would do. In one instance you have a fiction and the other is as real as it gets.

2.)Do such films only serve to tantalize a bad crime(i.e.-rape) by portraying it on film that criminals may see?

Yes, that is one of the end results. I'm not sure the purpose behind graphically portraying the rape seen otherwise. What happened to the art of making the incident believable without having to actually portray the scene?

3.)Where do you draw the line on young actors/actresses and emotional/criminal scenes?

Legally, the line should be drawn when the youth reaches the "majority" (i.e., 18 yrs. old). While a celeb is a minor there should be special protections to keep them from acting out certain graphic scenes whether they be sexual or violent.

4.)Is worrying about this kind of thing just too prudish?

Absolutely not. Continually revisiting the special protections we put on youth is generally not a prudish thing especially when the consideration is to grant them liberties that, to that point in time, had been reserved solely for the adults.

1.)Are the parents guilty of neglect in allowing their daughter to act out such a thing?

That depends on how mature the child is. It is at least plausible that an experienced, intelligent, mature actress could be emotionally prepared to play such a role at the age of twelve.

How is this any different than what a criminal would attempt to act out?

There is no comparison. At the very worst, this may have been a foolish decision on the part of the actress, her parents, and others involved in making the movie.

2.)Do such films only serve to tantalize a bad crime(i.e.-rape) by portraying it on film that criminals may see?

This depends on how such things are presented. If rape is seen to be erotic, this is not a good thing. If rape is accurately depicted as an act of violence, this may increase the awareness of the audience as to the evil of this crime.

3.)Where do you draw the line on young actors/actresses and emotional/criminal scenes?

This must be decided on an individual basis. Such a decision should only be made after a great deal of thought and discussion by everyone involved.

4.)Is worrying about this kind of thing just too prudish?

No, not at all. It's good to think about such things carefully.

1.)Are the parents guilty of neglect in allowing their daughter to act out such a thing? How is this any different than what a criminal would attempt to act out?

It depends on the content of the film, so I can't say because I haven't seen it. Children participating in rape scenes in general don't necessarily cross the line into neglect if they are done in a mild way. I did see one movie I thought crossed the line in this regard: The Heart is Deceitful. It was a very good film, of the kind that didn't leave you with a happy feeling, but shock and a sickening sensation of vomit rising up into your throat. Caution! Spoilers! In this film, the child was introduced to sex at about eight years old, raped by his mother's husband, and abandoned. Later, she dressed him up in women's neglige and put makeup on him, prancing him around as a girl and calling him her sister. He made advances towards her live-in boyfriend while dressed in his mother's underwear, dancing around erotically and wiggling his bottom. They had a sexual relationship. Anyway, you get the idea.

Let's make it simple. Would it be considered neglect to set up your child in the living room and do this type of home film? IF so, bringing in a hundred people to watch it, paying the parents a lot of money, and doing it big picture Hollywood style doesn't suddenly make it "okay".

2.)Do such films only serve to tantalize a bad crime(i.e.-rape) by portraying it on film that criminals may see?
I'm not sure what the criminal mind thinks. I'd assume this isn't very tantalizing to criminals who are probably accostumed to more graphic material.

3.)Where do you draw the line on young actors/actresses and emotional/criminal scenes?

Second paragraph, first answer.

4.)Is worrying about this kind of thing just too prudish?

Not to me, but people's definition of prudish can range very very far...I'm sure a pediphile would think my opinion prudish.

1.)Are the parents guilty of neglect in allowing their daughter to act out such a thing? How is this any different than what a criminal would attempt to act out?

I would say neglect if somehow it can be proved the person in question played the role against there will. The difference to me is that a rapist of course is not doing anything besides forcefully raping someone for real, there is a difference in that to say the least. I don’t think the actor in this situation is going to come away with the memory or feeling of actually being raped, simply because it was acted out in a studio type setting of all things and again was acted out for a movie or artistic purpose. I had to in middle school act out a scene about the murder rate in New York city in which I was killed acting as a pedestrian for my wallet, I have no emotional damage over the issue and of course never felt as if I was assaulted or for that matter killed.

2.)Do such films only serve to tantalize a bad crime(i.e.-rape) by portraying it on film that criminals may see?

There is no way to be for sure on that in regards to people in total. Could it push someone towards such an act, I don’t see why not, but from what I know of crime if you were to ban something on the idea it lead to crime then I think you might pretty much want to ban everything in every human society overall giving human history.

3.)Where do you draw the line on young actors/actresses and emotional/criminal scenes?

The only avenue of art that has ever bothered me is people that produce something as truth when really its not even close to it, much like the people that got in an uproar over the film by Michel Moore on bush with the guise of being a documentary. As more specific to the debate question I would fully not agree with this if of course the actor was forced or duped into the role outside of fully accepting with knowledge that role, something akin to what happens to most child soldiers in the world.

4.)Is worrying about this kind of thing just too prudish?

I don’t know if I would say prudish, oversight is healthy in my opinion, if not abused by say a moral crusader or so on.

Where do you draw the line on young actors/actresses and emotional/criminal scenes?

To quote gordo,

"As more specific to the debate question I would fully not agree with this if of course the actor was forced or duped into the role outside of fully accepting with knowledge that role, something akin to what happens to most child soldiers in the world."

So where is your line, gordo? It sounds like what you are saying is that if the child actor understands the import of the scene then it might be OK? Is that true of any age?

I have a 13-year-old daughter, and I would not want her to happen to see this at a friend's house without my knowledge, because I surely wouldn't allow her to see it WITH my knowledge.

Yes, I am a prude. I think there's already enough suggestive stuff out there that titillates adults, predominantly men, into considering children fair game for sex and exploitation.

No, I do not believe that Dakota Fanning's parents allowing her to participate in this film in this manner rises to the level of neglect. But I do think it's pretty questionable. Who wants their daughter thought about in those terms when they damn well know that movie audiences include pedophiles and those considering pedophilia?

Where I would draw the line on films such as these is clearly not where the movie industry draws the line. But then I would be a lot better off financially if the bottom line was the overriding consideration in the decisions I make.

1.)Are the parents guilty of neglect in allowing their daughter to act out such a thing? How is this any different than what a criminal would attempt to act out?

Only if all other "stage parents" are. I think Ms. Fanning has grown up rather quickly. The movie business isn’t for naifs, that’s for sure. If her parents were OK with her acting in the films she has, some with a lot of violence, why is this any different?

2.)Do such films only serve to tantalize a bad crime(i.e.-rape) by portraying it on film that criminals may see?

If that were the case, then every action or horror movie would encourage people to bad acts.

3.)Where do you draw the line on young actors/actresses and emotional/criminal scenes?

There was a long article about this in the Sunday paper. Most of the scene was shot with the two actors separated, believe it or not. Ms. Fanning was never even nude (unlike Brooke Shields in Pretty Baby).


Dakota Fanning is a bright and mature young woman and a brilliant actress, and she has this to say:

4.)Is worrying about this kind of thing just too prudish?
Yes. I'd worry more about the gore and flying body parts in the uber-violent horror films...or even the footage on the 5:00 news of a faceless, dismembered corpse (that I inadvertently saw last night - thanks, ABC).

I have an issue with how this topic is presented, and how some are replying to it. I hadn't really ever felt rape, especially rape of a child, was sexual, I thought it was violent. So to ask if it is prudish, is to place it in the context of women and sex and how we should or should not behave. I don't think that is very appropriate for the issue of debate.
I also think comparing this rape scene as in opposition to other violent scenes is again placing the subject in the wrong context. It is a violent image a rape and even more repugnant to assign it to a child. There are not many scenes in movies, least none I can think of, I am not a horror film fan, that shows children being chopped up, killed or graphically tortured. If there was I am sure it too would cause a scandal.

I think it is exploitive as this appears to be done very much so with foresight to the attention it would gain, and because it is being excused as so well done, and well acted ...right we all know female roles are most important and valuable to our society when they are portrayed as suffering victims of sexual violence. Thank goodness we have this Dakota Fanning (she creeps me out) to help school our young girls and best prepare them for their future rapes. Way to lead the new generation Ms. Fanning!

How should I say this? Movies are a work of fiction, they are not real though some can be based on true events. Sometimes or I would say most the time movies draw from aspects that exist in the human experience, such as the awful reality that this movie is portraying. So in that light, that I know its fictional and not real, and if the people involved know such too, I don’t get to uptight about it overall is all. Now if the person was to be put in a situation, this person being a 12 year old, that was not sound or safe for her or him, such as the act maybe being to much on them to the point it would be damaging to them, I would say no to it personally, so for me its a criteria is all that I would judge it from.

Now I have not read on the movie, but taxi driver had something similar going on, an underage girl being used as a prostitute. Now I think it was Jodi or Jody Fosters sister that stepped in for those shots, but watching the film you would never know this. So for a director or anyone to produce a film for that matter that might contain touchy subjects such as this they do have to walk in many cultures a fine line, even though the work is fictional, or when someone gets shot to death in a movie its not really happening I guess is what I am trying to say, and no I don’t think we need to utterly constrict art because then it would simply lose its purpose, this does not mean I don’t accept the idea of standards being applied like the ones I would hold, again another fine line due to complexity I would say.

As for that age issue, well do you think 17 is old enough to enter a combat zone? Do you think 10 is old enough to understand what is being sold to them by the Disney channel? Do you think a five year old needs to be told about super natural beings?

I think quickly you start to enter some subjective dimension that many don’t escape from.

To quote Gordo,

"As for that age issue, well do you think 17 is old enough to enter a combat zone? Do you think 10 is old enough to understand what is being sold to them by the Disney channel? Do you think a five year old needs to be told about super natural beings?

I think quickly you start to enter some subjective dimension that many don’t escape from."

The devil is in the details I know. For every line that can be drawn there is always an example of someone so "close" to that line that an argument for shifting that line is always in the cards. I do believe however that because we already offer special protections to minors we can and do define what we would consider legal behavior for that group. Unfortunately, we now enter an area (child porn and the depiction of)that continues to be battled out in the courts.

I guess I am appealing to a vague moral standard that would suggest not involving a pre-pubescent youngster in a graphically-depicted rape scene (regardless of whether she were present at the time of the shoot). In my favor, arguing for an "informed consent" standard leaves a bigger, and potentially more abusive misuse of our youth. Again, how young shall we go? I know plenty of 9 yr. old girls that understand the import of what DK has done? Are these 9 yr. olds the next line?

I say shame on the parents for allowing this to happen. I believe 12 yr. old females should be focused on something other providing an Oscar-quality, rape-scene performance.

Thank you for expressing my sentiments better than I did!

You're right. It is more a matter of violence than sex. And put into those terms, it is not prudish to be against such exploitation.

This is yet another example of the saying, "Just because something can be done doesn't mean it should."

And whereas a lot of blood and gore movies involving adults are perceived as more violent and therefore less acceptable than the scene of a child being raped, in the real world chainsaw massacres don't occur every day while assaults on children do.

And yes, I also remember accounts of Brooke Shields' performance in Pretty Baby. The same that is being said of Dakota Fanning's parents certainly was said of Shields' mother at the time.

That’s just the issue to me though. You may hold it as some issue close to the realm of child pornography what if I don’t view it like that. Now I know what is to be occurring in the movie, but again for lack of better words it is a movie. Its not some hidden criminal behavior, it was put out in the open for viewing by the general public all legal and such, and I will be willing to bet for a reason. Art always if done correctly on an issue will bring a strong reaction, its pretty much the purpose of it. Laws around the flag of our nation owes in many respects to art showings about the flag, and the history of art is far more complex and full of such examples.

Now again the movie is of no big deal to me, save what the debate topic is about. I do not see the reason to condemn such unless it can be proved that the person in question was manipulated into it against her will.

I mean what would hit harder about the fact of child prostitution in the world, some paper on it or a live action movie that left with far more the real reality of it without actually having to experience it. I mean you could read on the genocide that took place in WW2, but I am hard pressed to compare it to even a real photograph of it.

So as you take a moral standard and make a judgment on it, it is those details of the devil you maybe should take into account too.

Again it is just a movie, its not real, and I am pretty sure most everybody that worked in it would agree, have you read anything of a statement from the actor in question?

As for the remark about tomorrow it will be a nine year old, well that is a pretty slippery slope, you might have well said how about something unborn or equally disturbing. The point the movie might get across to some in my opinion would basically be the same almost overall, it would be a child being raped, and I imagine such will hit the audience rather hard.

Again, as for negative issues such as it leading to some. Well, I would simply like to point out that not to long ago even in this nations history getting married at 12 was normal of all things, and not to say its ok but I would go as far to say that such acts are far far older then this movie.

In case no one knew (or cared, in some cases), the movie is an account of the director's life, and this is something that actually happened to her. Has anyone SEEN this movie before condemning it?

Yes, Jodie Foster and Brooke Shields both took heat for their "scandalous" roles, but, hey, look at 'em - they didn't turn out so bad.

1. I'm not going to question the child's parents. Obviously, the kid is a "child actor" and while this role is especially heavy... it's still a role. I remember Jodie Foster's performance in Taxi Driver and she was fantastic. She grew up to be an adult actor of high regard.

2. I doubt it in this case. There are so many more blatant examples from Hollywood that glorify criminal, irresponsible sexual, or blatantly anti-social behavior to question this obscure independent film.

3. I don't. It depends on the kid. The kid in "6th Sense" was great as the aforementioned Foster.

4. I think it is. Worrying about what gets portrayed on film when there are so many "real" human problems to deal with is more a waste of time and energy if you ask me.

I have the same feeling like gordo and DaffyGrl this movie is getting alot of bad publicity from organizations that haven't even seen the film and have only heard or read about it. While I am also only a person that has read about it, what I am getting from the reports is not that you are going to see some child raped on a movie screen. But as this CNN report describes the scene that is getting all the controversy over goes like this.

Dakota Fanning: 'It's called acting'



This movie isn't supposed to be entertaining its supposed to have some shock some wake up sense to you, because this has been happening for a long time now. Where decades ago it would be brushed under the rug to try to make it go away if possible or hide it like an embarrassing scar, finally now adays its not so much like that. But still today when something like this does happen look at how our society reacts either everyone over reacts without all the facts in or how a group of people were covering for a person(s) for decades by moving them from concregation to concregation.

Come to think of it I don't remember to much uproar in the media when the movie Sleepers which was based on 4 kids from Hell's Kitchen being sent to reform school and being raped and they actually showed more in that film than what is shown in this film. I thought Sleepers was a well done movie with a good story that was a taboo subject not many decades ago. Stories whether they are in books or on film like this are supposed to get you thinking as well as to get a reaction out of you.

Sleepers

I think, from what I have read on my own, is that the biggest concern is not the end product being child pornography, but sexual abuse and exploitation to a child.
Asking a child to engage in sexual behavior is criminal, I don't think there is any room for debate on that piece of the subject at all. So during the filming was a child harmed? Was this child who was asked to engage in several sexual scenarios, the rape is but one according to accounts, exploited and abused? What you will see in the movie is the edited end product but what had to happen to achieve this? And is this acceptable and legal behavior and yes employment for a minor? Art is one thing and I have no argument that it is not important to our society and should be protected, but I feel the same for children. I very much support laws to protect children from sexual exploitation and abuse.


It is real, a real person had to act out those sexual scenes. Is it ok because they were only pretending? Or because penetration did not occur? Or because the child agreed to it? None of those things matter, really. The laws are to protect children from being placed in sexually exploitive situations not to allow them to decide if they wish to be or not, and not to allow the director to decide what is ok behavior to act out and what is not. Real laws for real children.



I don't think the film has been picked up for distribution yet. And I don't see anything wrong with us asking questions on how this film achieved it's sex scenes with a child without having seen the film. As I said above the film is the end product, what happened to achieve this product is more important.
Also I don't understand your argument about other child actors, other children and women are raped, sexually abused and for all purposes appear to not "turn out so bad". That certainly is not the standard in which we govern and enforce these laws. I also think society does progress and certainly has so in regards to what is not only socially acceptable behavior with minors but what is or is not legally so too.
I don't think we serve ourselves or our children well if we look to historical norms or socially accepted behaviors to further guide us forward.

I know, but its also like this. Taxi driver, great movie BTW. The had a minor acting as a child prostitute, should they not ever be allowed to talk about such material in a movie? What about the opening scene of lord of war, another great movie BTW, when the child soldier is shot and killed. I am sure such material is very strong, but how then is art to incorporate such? What if you wanted to make a movie about leftover landmines in a country? What if you wanted to make a movie that gave say the people of America a more emotional and real portrayal of child prostitution? I mean there are reports all over the world about the reality of this, but where is the outrage, save for when it comes up in a movie then its all to much

I agree fully about protecting children from sexual predators. I also understand though that for what its worth I truly doubt for this movie to have committed a sex crime on a minor, or even thought of doing such.

Its a hot topic button, as it should be, and I am pretty sure that was incorporated into the movie. I also do not think this movie is advocating the rape of children, I would simply imagine its quite the opposite actually.

Also I probably would have not defended this if all it happened to be was a scene like such, but its not. What if some person who had experience such wanted to find a medium in which to show the world, should such an occurrence in there life be blacklisted and shoved away from the mainstream?

I remember a movie called "kids" that took place in I think New York city. Basically it revolved around a group of minors living life. This movie had all kinds of touchy scenes in it. Watching the movie though is hardly some glorification of such, more or less at the end of the movie most the kids realize that they have destroyed there lives and many of them became HIV positive. I watched this movie when I was around 16/17, and it made a much larger impact on my actions then any talks adults ever made to me.

Personal anecdotes aside, I truly don’t see this as simply some act of child exploitation.

I am reminded to temper my passions regards to this situation. Perhaps the scene is played out more discretely and professionally than I give it credit for. I guess my reaction is "part and parcel" with any effort by Hollywood to "press the envelope" and especially when this pressing involves a child heavily involved in a sexual scene.

I do, nonetheless, have an issue when those who would defend such "art" cannot articulate a line where "enough would be enough" or where their standard seems based on a rationale that would not adequately protect minors from these types of situations. Actually, some posters argue that "informed consent" should be that standard. I thought informed consent was reserved for adult interactions and not when dealing with minors?

To quote V-wolf,

1.)Are the parents guilty of neglect in allowing their daughter to act out such a thing?

"That depends on how mature the child is. It is at least plausible that an experienced, intelligent, mature actress could be emotionally prepared to play such a role at the age of twelve" (emphasis added).

To quote gordo,

3.)Where do you draw the line on young actors/actresses and emotional/criminal scenes?

"As more specific to the debate question I would fully not agree with this if of course the actor was forced or duped into the role outside of fully accepting with knowledge that role, something akin to what happens to most child soldiers in the world" (emphasis added).

Gordo again,

"Now again the movie is of no big deal to me, save what the debate topic is about. I do not see the reason to condemn such unless it can be proved that the person in question was manipulated into it against her will" (emphasis added).

D-Girl,

"Yes, Jodie Foster and Brooke Shields both took heat for their "scandalous" roles, but, hey, look at 'em - they didn't turn out so bad" (emphasis added).

L-Helmut,

"I'm not going to question the child's parents."

Cadman,

"Stories whether they are in books or on film like this are supposed to get you thinking as well as to get a reaction out of you"(emphasis added).

This issue is lost when we spend time arguing about other movies containing violence and/or sexuality- these movies should be taken to task accordingly. Nor should we primarily be interested in the merits of a realistic portrayal of rape, or interested in how this constructively impacts society, or whether this portrays a real-life experience of the director, and on and on. While those indeed are important considerations, they pale in comparison to the primary issue - how far are we willing to go when involving children in sexually/violently-explicit movies and in whom will we trust to make these decisions when the time comes? Hollywood perhaps?

1.)Are the parents guilty of neglect in allowing their daughter to act out such a thing?

"Neglect" is not the word I would use. For me personally, no amount of money or publicity would be worth the shortening of this girl's childhood. I would use the term "irresponsibility" in referring to Dakota's parents.


2.)Do such films only serve to tantalize a bad crime(i.e.-rape) by portraying it on film that criminals may see?

Something is definitely causing these types of crimes to be on the rise. I am sure that television and films can bear much of the responsibility for that rise.

3.)Where do you draw the line on young actors/actresses and emotional/criminal scenes?

The "line" must be drawn by the guardians in this case the parents. It would be my hope that parents would realize the importance of childhood and opt out of any sexual or violent scenes for minor children.


4.)Is worrying about this kind of thing just too prudish?

Maybe instead of worrying about being too prudish, we need to consider what the advantage or plus would be in having our child act in such a scene. What possible benefit, other than the obvious monetary, would result for a young girl in this part? Maybe there is something I'm missing here?

Interesting responses thus far. The second question is one that I really have a problem with. An earlier comment was made regarding a scene being a scene, as opposed to a scene being an "erotic" one. In regards to people who offend on children, I'm not so certain that there is a difference. There is a reason why we have laws so that they don't reside within so many feet of an elementary school. Even a non-"erotic" setting can serve to trigger their desires. When an offender watches that scene, are we to seriously expect that they won't be enticed by such a scene? In regards to "judgment," we make judgments all the time. We weigh in on economic, social, and political events all the time. I fail to see how such a simple matter as parents allowing a girl to participate in a scene suddenly compels us to stand on the sideline and say: "well, we can't pass judgment on that." Since when in any situation, has that become some unwritten rule? Holding out based on not viewing the movie is one thing, holding out for holding out's sake due to "judgment " is quite another to me.

I agree with you fully about being able to pass judgment on simply not agreeing to this scene. The problem I have is for one its simply not occurring like you make it out to be. Its not some pornographic head on depiction of a child being raped. The viewer of the film, an adult such as yourself though will fully be aware of what is going on though. You don’t like it, you feel its wrong and something should be done, that overall what happened in the movie was an injustice, well I would think that such was part of the reason such a scene was made, though of course only an assumption. To think that allowing such a scene is going to motivate someone to rape a child is simply wrong overall though. Such horrible acts have been occurring before electricity was even harnessed or motion pictures were around. I would think most the people with such deviate behavior would probably want to view the film just as an attempt to use that scene alone for that behavior, but just to pass judgment that such a scene will indeed bring rape to children, well then what else could you apply that judgment too and pretty soon what freedom is left? Not just for artistic expression, but expression down to simply freedom.

If someone wants to write an autobiography of there life should being raped as a child be left out? What about groups that gather to talk about it in some psychological setting looking for help? Whats to say some person with deviate behavior would not obtain access to either of those?

Its a slippery slope in my opinion giving all the criteria involved to state that such an expression or scene should not be allowed to exist, to me the mechanisms or logic behind such a move just seem rather flawed overall.

I will however advocate more so for the actor in question, but still that would be covered from the fact that how to movie was most likely conducted never even got close to bringing that person into such a situation. I mean from what I understand its a shot of the actress in bed, then a shot eluding to an adult preparing to rape her. The multitude of ways to set this up overall could probably be conducted as to her not even knowing that such was even in the movie if people did not inform her...

I see overall the grounds though for why I think you object to it, but overall I cant find the correlation between it and what could be illegal sexual acts around children, its simply not the same in most any regard. I would also be willing to bet that any 12 year old alive in America gets more exposure to sexuality from just watching commercials on mainstream television then this movie had.

gordo, I just do not understand how you place so much weight and reliance on what the movie's image is or is not for your argument. Have you seen the movie?

I have not so I have relied on critics reviews to only further solidify my opinion of this subject, I originally stated I felt it was exploitive in the sense that the story of a child's rape was being used soley for the gain of money, fame and recognition.

Here is the NYT's review of Hounddog it also further supports my claim that the rape scene is but one of the the questionably expoitive images in this movie...

As sincere as it is stupid, “Hounddog” is pure art-house exploitation, as evidenced by the images of its 12-year-old star dressed in a wet T-shirt and panties, of her writhing on a bed and of her awkwardly grinding in a hootchy-kootchy pantomime to the Elvis Presley song of the film’s title. As in “The Accused” (the Jodie Foster rape movie), the film’s narrative momentum builds to the rape, which is discreetly staged; unfortunately, it is also presented with some of the same tropes of the classic movie love scene: there is a shot of the girl’s clutching hand and, after the assault, a close-up of her face. Ms. Fanning’s commitment to this material is unwavering in its creepiness.

Much like “Black Snake Moan,” yet another Sundance film about an oversexed white woman whose demons are exorcized by a blues-singing black man, “Hounddog” is rubbish. But it’s the kind of rubbish that comes with a Hollywood star and attracts maximum media attention.
link

He's already said he hasn't, but perhaps he read the Hollywood Reporter's review?

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/film/r...p?&rid=8693





I have no problem with statements against the film, and it's points... But, many in this thread have tread dangerously close to censorship lines. This work is somewhat autobiographical, are you saying that she can't artisitcally display her life as she likes to? Come on. She did nothing illegal. Life isn't pretty, and thus good film isn't pretty.

It is impossible to debate this issue with a large group of people who have not seen the film. Let's wait for cinema release.

smorpheus, I am confused with what you mean by "...many in this thread have tread dangerously close to censorship lines." For starters, no one here is in a position to censor such. Secondly, isn't that what the government either directly or indirectly does all of the time? And shouldn't it?

Though I cannot speak for the others, there seem to be two issues at play here; 1) Is what DK has participated in within the legal parameters of what a minor can do?, and 2) Even if it is considered legal, shouldn't there be an ongoing discussion about whether the law should be changed?

As stated in an earlier post, I am concerned with the scant concession that there are certain "line ranges" that should not be passed when exposing children to certain adult situations. You do not address this but rather seek to excuse this effort by exclaiming, "This work is autobiographical, are you saying that she can't artistically display her life as she likes to?" smorpheus, is that really the primary consideration? Remember, I am not solely appealing to what is considered legal but rather to some sense of morality about what is considered appropriate for our children.

I don't recall anyone desiring censorship, in fact I already addressed this issue because I knew it would get thrown around.
I don't think the director is qualified , and don't believe a 12 yr old child is qualified and unfortunately not always are the child's parents qualified to make the decision as to what is or is not sexual exploitation of a child. There has to be oversight of some kind and altho I am not advocating a congressional hearing I am stating that art too has limits. Asking a child to act out sexual scenes is not legal, and regardless of what the end product looks like what had to occur on set, what the young actress was asked to perform is far more of a concern to me than anything else. I have no idea what happened or what this girl was asked to 'act' in order to make this movie, watching the movie will unlikely completely inform us., so if she was exploited sexually I do not know.
We always seem so comfortable with the idea of assuring and being informed that no animals were injured in the making of a movie, so what is the big deal in asking if any kids were sexually exploited? And why should anyone who is concerned for the wellbeing of children, even in sexual situations be called a prude? Seems like there is a bit of a double standard being applied.

I do however think that the sexualization of this child was an attempt to gain recognition for the film and the actress and I do believe it was very aggressively pursued as many critics have said the film was a grotesque cliche.

That is a valid thing and I don't believe that anyone would take issue with that. There is a thin line to me between a book about deeply personal issues and a movie that sensationalizes the event. Is not hte purpose of movies to hook people and to affect them? I'd say it's working.



I would wager that the number of 12 year olds allowed in on American Psychological Association conferences on rape or trauma is quite small. Therapy sessions deal with such issues with children present, though it's a private matter that is professionally dealt with. To view such a thing out in the open and not within the context of guidance?



That may very well be the case. In that context, then I would have to concede that concerns are overrated. If however, it is more *graphic* in intensity and in being implied, then I think we would have crossed into some bad territory.



I remember when Doogie Howser lost his virginity and when Fred from the wonder years had a similar experience with his girlfriend Winnie(sp?) I'm not a prude at all, though if there is a slippery slope, it is leaving nothing to the imagination and that, is sad.

Yes but from how I would view what a majority of people are saying on this board you would expect to go and watch pornography rather then a movie, I could say I truly doubt such is the case with the movie, and if it was I would also say a lot of people behind the movie would already be in jail, hence while it appears to me pretty close to censorship.

Also about my other examples, who knows what would set a child rapist off, reading in in some book I think would qualify, maybe even hearing about it on the news, who knows. the bottom line is people are basically making this movie out to be child pornography, and I hardly doubt that to be the case.

gordo,

While I can't speak for everyone else on this thread, I have never suggested that DK's scene may set some child rapist off or that it will unnecessarily traumatize her (although one or more of these are possible/probable eventualities). The primary issue continues to be whether we want our children involved in such endeavors for the sake of, in this case, "artistic license" (thank heavens the director did not suffer through the trauma of rape at an even younger age!).

It's all well and good that the director took pains to "protect" DK from possible trauma (though she can never really entirely know), or that this movie was an accurate/responsible portrayal of her own life story (though I don't understand what this has to do with involving DK in a rape scene or encouraging DK to perform in ways that are considered, as the NYT's review puts it, "pure art-house exploitation, as evidenced by the images of its 12-year-old star dressed in a wet t-shirt and panties, of her writhing on a bed and of her awkwardly grinding in a hootchy-kootchy pantomime to the Elvis Presley song of the film's title.") What happened to the art of leaving more to the imagination without the need to visually portray the act?

Again, what should be/are the criteria for involving minors in on-screen violent and/or sexual depictions? Maybe as long as the director tries to portray it "responsibly"? Maybe as long as DK says it's OK? Maybe if the movie serves to educate a wider audience on the trauma of rape? Or perhaps if the movie is based on "real life"? Or even worse, if it looks like censorship we have no business commenting on it? All of these miss the more important mark. When we are dealing with minors the rules of the game are different than with adults. Consent or responsible behavior are not the only considerations.

There is already a wiki link for this movie

Pouring over all the links I cared to read on the film it seems the only thing sure about it is controversy. I found a link on exit reviews from people that got to see the movie, so here is what they had to say.


EXIT

Big links like time magazine seemed impartial really on there reporting. Conservative websites basically hail it as the devil to make things short, individual websites seemed to have mixed emotions on the film. I did not read any leftist sites on the film.

Currently the state the film was shot in is trying to make a law that allows pre approval of scripts over the controversy the film has made. I guess even that the actress in questions had to wear a fake uniform for some of the shots so that nudity was never obtained in the film and from all reports no laws were broken save it does stir up a lot of emotion, and the most funny part to me in this is all the controversy heads from a film that most all the controversial critics openly admit to have never even viewed.

Dakotas negative remarks include that she was scared during the snake scene because live snakes where used, which I guess was to add wo what is being called southern gothic.

The film I guess is having troubles though because I doubt anyone wants to be associated with the film do to social pressures and taboos respectively, I wonder if those same people hate the Disney channel because I know I do.

Anyways. Look at the link, its a video so it might take sometime to download for some.

Again I do not follow your argument or logic in reference to this debate as it seems very removed from any of the poster's views and comments here at
It seems you feel more comfortable to debate this subject with people who you deem conservative, prudish and ignorant. I have to assume that is why you surveyed the internet to find critics who stated their opinions in obvious right/left arenas with obvious right/left agendas. I don;t know now which to find more frustration with, the idea that child exploitation is considered "prudish" or that child exploitation is thought to be a right/left issue.

All the critics I read of the film were actual film critics who actually saw the movie and it didn't get good reviews, I have no idea how this fell along right/left idealogues and I really don't care.

The fact this movie became a must see at sundance because of it controversy and played to packed, sold out theatres and yet still was never bought for distribution says a lot about it's quality and vision.

How so. I am debating in a circle if you ask me. They post there opinion, I post mine. Really cant post the movie now can we. I was asked in the very last run of things if they thought again this was appropriate, and again for I don’t know how many times had to say the same thing, so I thought I would change it up.

Yes, I looked around at websites, like Time for example, to individual personally sites this time maybe to change the tempo, I mean I don’t know what you want, if you want me to agree with you just because well I really don’t understand that.

The actress in question has made not a single complaint in reference to the controversial material, her beef was fear of snakes...

The exit reviews told a story of people that expected to see something other then what they saw in the movie.

Other movie review sites like with any movie have a mixed message of thumbs up or thumbs down, basically surrounding the controversy.

I fully respect the argument that such would be totally inappropriate if it was even remotely damaging to the actress in question, but where is the proof on that. I would also deem the movie deviate if it contained illegal sexual activity, in real life, and it does not, simply because giving the controversy around the film I think it would be safe to say that some people would be in jail right now.

I think the premise of the movie is pretty cool overall baring the controversy, its gritty and somewhat real in a form that cant be easily rendered in .25% of a paragraph.

If you want to debate me on my taste in movies, well I have not even scene it, and overall I probably wont ever see it, or have the chance to for that matter thanks to censorship.

I cant honestly identify even what I am debating anymore, is it my taste in movies I have not scene, or the fact I can accept this movie existing? If you could clarify for me that would be great. If its simply you don’t agree with the movies contents and you feel its wrong, that’s fine, you can have your opinion, I don’t hold it in the same light for ground we have already covered, and lastly I never called anyone ignorant in this debate, so TY.

1.)Are the parents guilty of neglect in allowing their daughter to act out such a thing?
Yes. If the parents came home and found this being filmed, they would go absolutely ballistic. That they are party to it serves as no excuse. If a 12 year old girl is "mature enough" to handle the burden of acting through a rape scene, then her parents have squandered her childhood. A child actor can relate to losing a parent or a grandparent or something like that, because pretty much all children have lost a pet or a grandparent, etc. They have some frame of reference to bring to the acting. Where is a child supposed to get their frame of reference for rape?

How is this any different than what a criminal would attempt to act out?
A criminal wouldn't have the "support" of 100s of people, and wouldn't be defended by the "arts" and free speech crowd.

2.)Do such films only serve to tantalize a bad crime(i.e.-rape) by portraying it on film that criminals may see?
Yes. The amount of "non consent" pornography out there is tremendous, as is the amount of child porn. With all due respect to SCOTUS, (none in this particular case), of age actors, drawings, and computer generated facsimiles of children in pornography, i.e. not actual children, only imaginary children, are just as harmful and "tantalizing" as real children, at least until after some guy (or occasionally, albeit rarely, woman) has "done" a few real children and needs to "step it up" for the thrill. To say that "rape is about violence" is, with real respect in this case, foolish. Rape is about sex and violence. If it weren't about sex, then the rapist would just smack the victim around. Because of this linkage, films such as this do tantalize. Many people get off on the combination of sex and violence.

3.)Where do you draw the line on young actors/actresses and emotional/criminal scenes?
Tough one. I don't think you can draw "the line", save where sex, especially criminal sex, is concerned. Otherwise its a judgement call, one that should always fall on the side of caution.

4.)Is worrying about this kind of thing just too prudish?
No. Its wisdom. Children should not be eroticized, period. The line blurring "children" and "adults", at least where females are concerned, has been and continues to be blurred in the realm of pornography. There are legions of legal websites as well as some publications that specialize in "barely 18." In much the same way as the fashion world is overrun with skinny androngenous bodies, legal porn is flooded with barely pubescent images.