Sundance Day 3 – Sales Round-Up
Things picked up considerably as desperate distributors started packing to leave town en masse on Tuesday. Still, $4.1 million seems to be the high figure so far and no film is really expected to go higher this week.
Risky Blog broke that Joshua sold to Fox Searchlight. They did not report the price of $3.7 million for all worldwide rights.
My Kid Could Paint That goes to either IFC or Magnolia (outside shot, SPC) for about $1 million
The documentary In The Shadow Of The Moon went for $1 million.
The real price on the Weinstein Co buy of Grace Is Gone is just over $4 million, not under $3 million as previously reported.
The Weinstein Company and Lionsgate will co-buy Teeth. The first big hurdle the film will have to overcome is the MPAA rating, so it may end up being released domestically by Lionsgate to avoid MPAA rules against a member distributor (MGM) sending a movie out unrated.
Sony Classics buys Weapons, in spite of a lot of negative response to the film.
New Line/Picturehouse picked up doc King of Kong (apparently already reported in Variety).
Word has it that although The Night Buffalo has no domestic buyer on the line yet, they made the biggest sale in history for the Mexico territory this week.
A sale for Delirious is expected by Tuesday. And indieWIRE reports heat around the doc, The Devil Came On Horseback. There is still some interest around Rocket Science. And there may be a buyer for the female-skewing Broken English.
And finally, the hot acquisitions title for Monday is Son of Rambow, though the hype is floating around Hounddog.
Teeth sounds really bad.
…that’s all.
Kamikaze: It’s not.
David, isn’t Rocket Science being released by Picturehouse? It’s been on their release schedule for months but every person I’ve talked to keeps saying how “it will get picked up.”
Really? Dental Vaginas don’t sound that inviting.
DENTAL VAGINAS? Sweet mother of god, count me out.
Of course the hype is around Hounddog. Every conservative group in the country is calling it ‘child pornography’
Sean Hannity did a segment on it. The conservatives are going to go after this movie weilding every torch they have. I mean shit, it’s America’s Pre-Teen sweetheart in a series of sexually ambiguous situations.
I think Charlotte’s Web will be the last family film anyone will see her in. Whether she consciouslly wanted to do that or not, she’s going to be blacklisted in the family film genre. There’s no coming back from this, trust me. By the time O’Reilley, Rush, Hannity, and every talking head gets a hold of this one… It’ll be great for the movie. The hype is built in. For her career, however, it makes me wonder if maybe she took a way to mature role a little too early.
Anghus,
You are right, many conservatives are going after Hounddog and many liberals are going after the conservatives.
I ask you, at some point is this defensible? I know Jodie Foster was 12 when she did Taxi Driver but Scorsese never asked her to put on a flesh colored body suit and act as though she is being raped.
Are some conservatives knee-jerk in their condemnation of many graphic films. Yes. Are many liberals equally as knee-jerk in their defense of anything graphic so long as another ‘taboo’ is broken. Yes.
How does Dakota Fanning know how to act a though she is being raped? She doesn’t. An adult director told her. Imagine the conversation.
“C’mon Dakota, squeal just a little bit more. Camera unit 1 close up as she winces upon the penatration. No Dakota wince harder now, there’s an Oscar in this for you remember. You’ll get more mature roles for sure; just like Lindsay Lohan.”
Put all the lib/con bullshit aside for a moment. Do you think the makers of Hounddog are serious artists along the line of a Spielberg, Kubrick, Ford, Eastwood etc.?
Do you think they cynically knew that getting ‘America’s sweetheart’ in an on-screen rape would give them noteriety and make them the toast of Sundance. Let’s not be naive. Fuck conservative. Howabout just for the sake of humanity and true art.
Do you think someone who is about to rape a child will watch Hounddog and reconsider? Or do you think it will actually arouse such people?
There is a point where the left becomes every bit as knee jerk as the right. Does the right jump to condemnation too often. Sure. And just as sure the left will jump in and defend ‘as art’ anything no matter how lurid, trite or banal as long as an orifice is being entered.
This film is less about child rape then it is the rape of child hood. If we are to conclude that it is obscene for ‘white trash’ parents to enter their kids in beauty pageants, should we not also conclude it is equally obscene for show biz parents to allow their children to commit to graphic depictions of rape on film?
I believe any subject matter can and should be dealt with.
In Richard the III, Shakespeare writes of the princes being murdered in the tower but we do not see it. Do you think it is less powerful?
I do not have to see Hounddog to know who made it; cynical ‘art house’ types who are out to shock. And everyone is playing their part like a dutiful servant.
I know I will never see Hounddog. Life is too short.
Has anyone seen this movie yet? And isn’t it a little foolish to criticize movies you haven’t seen?
Have you seen Catwoman?
Do you know it sucks?
Nicol D, well said.
Especially the point about everyone playing their part. They are going to ride this controversy all the way to the bank, and then the conservatives are going to crucify whoever decides to put it out.
The furor over the release of this film will make Dogma, Farenheit 911, and The Passion of the Christ pale in comparison.
I’m still trying to figure out who will be lining up to see an 11 year old getting raped? Or watching her father masturbate? Or various ‘up the skirt’ shots that are mentioned throughout…
creepy, just creepy.
Nico,
Does that mean they shouldn’t make The Exorcist if it was being made today? Would you be aginast Dakota Fanning being in The Exorcist?
How about Anjelica Huston’s Bastard Out of Carolina?
Do you object to child rape in movies on principle, or because it’s litle Dakota Fanning?
Did you ever see The Boys of St. Vincent?
How about Tim Roth’s The War Zone?
When is the right age for a yong actress to be asked to act out a violent act on screen?
Did you see Happiness? Is that movie more acceptable because it dealt with little boys?
P.S. I’ve seen Catwoman. Yes, you should see something before getting all hot and bothered. You’ll just sound more credible.
has anyone seen/heard anything about PADRE NUESTRO?
Nicol, no need to get so defensive. I wasn’t attacking you, and that’s a very silly response. Has anyone actually seen this movie yet? I honestly don’t know. And whenever someone bashes a movie they have not seen, they just sound stupid. How can one take them seriously if they have never laid eyes on what they are criticizing?
I think the topic of sexual abuse, the effect it has on its victims, and the way those victims then tend to become victimizers is something that is not discussed enough in our society. It would be a very good thing is these issues were better understood.
Does the movie work on that level? Or is it simply exploitative? I haven’t seen the movie, but the publicity surrounding it certainly makes me suspicious.
i haven’t seen the movie, but i’ve read the script and heard lots of people who worked on the film talk about it.
I heard a lot of ‘shock for the sake of shock’ from those who worked on it, and the script certainly doesn’t really have that much of a feel good vibe to it.
I wouldn’t think of dismissing a film before seeing it, but from what i’ve read, it feels more like something you’d see in Irreversible.
I can’t wait for Cannes…sundance is going downhill. Those titles alone are enough to turn people off.
i never thought about it before this thread, but the whole thing with teeth in vaginas, men fucking horses, and prepubescent girls being raped… but Sundance does feel like a whole lot of sexual deviancy this year.
Personally, that bores me.
Nicol-
When you saw HOUNDDOG, was Fanning acting the way you said she did while being “raped?” Oh…what’s that? You haven’t seen it? Oh. Well, then what the hell are you talking about?
I don’t know what the rape scene entails and neither do you. Maybe she lays there humming an Elvis song. Talk about your knee jerk reactions dude.
I’m firmly in the camp that people, and the film industry, can police themselves. SHORTBUS came out and ran it’s course. If people got offended, they probably walked out or didn’t go in the first place. I will say I think Larry Clark has done more to push the envelope on child endangerment than anyone else, yet he didn’t exploit any young “stars” so he doesn’t get the buzz.
Condemning a film based on a scene no one has even seen is Conservative America 101.
Just to clarify a few points.
1) Any subject matter is valid or a film.
2) Making a subject matter more graphic does not necesarily connote understanding the subject matter.
3) Making a subject matter more graphic does not necessarily mean you are more artistic.
4) We have had four decades now of saying the more we expose children to sexual behaviour at a young age the more enlightened about it they will be. Has it worked? Is there less sexual exploitation or more? More STD’s or less? More abortion or less? More teen suicide or less?
5) Do we need to understand the effects of sexual abuse? Of course and most people do. The only people who do not seem to be, are the ones who enter their children into garrish beauty pageants and art house director’s who see the need to exploit 11 year old actress’s by having them act as though they are being raped on film.
6) Anyone who is a graduate of film school or a critic and thinks that in the year of 2007 that you have to see a film to understand why and how it is made, clearly lives in a bubble and knows very little about the film industry and the arts.
7) The notion that the makers of this film did not choose to have a graphic rape scene with Dakota to know they could fan the flames of shock and cheap titilaation to be ‘Sundance darlings’ is painfully naive.
8) If you really think the words ‘daring’ and ‘Oscar’ were never used by Dakota’s people in choosing this role for her, you are so painfully naive that I wish I could live in a world with that blissful ignorance.
As I said; the right should be less knee jerk in their condemnation of graphic material and the left should quit being so knee jerk in its defense of it.
When both are, art suffers.
Ah Petaluma, tow that line….
The conservatives scream “everything about this wrong” and the liberals scream back “let the people decide individually what is too much”
me, i’m square in the middle. I’ve read the script, so my opinion comes from not just the rape scene (which is not just something that simple as her getting raped and humming an elvis song, trust me). On top of the rape scene there are…
Dakota dancing naked for a neighborhood boy for tickets to the elvis show
Watching her father masturbating
Her up in a tree talking to a local man while naked
This script reads like the feel good movie of the year if you’re into 9 year old girls.
SCENE 39
Lewellen (Fanning) and Buddy have just finished swimming in the creek when they run to a shed and strip naked. Soon they begin kissing and fondling each other as they have done “many times before”. This scene was quickly reshot the day after the investors pulled out.
SCENE 53
Daddy is pleasuring himself as Lewellen watches until he completes the act.
Scene 58
Later on Lewellen forces Buddy and Grasshopper to strip totally nude and ties them together forcing them to touch each other.
SCENE 78
Lewellen stands in front of the full length mirror takes her clothes off and looks at herself in the mirror
SCENE 80
Daddy sneaks into Lewellen’s bedroom as Lewellen lays in bed in her underpants. Later on he climbs in her bed nude.
SCENE 85
Daddy wants Lewellen to sit in his lap, Lewellen asks why and he smiles and says because it “feels so good”.
And of course, there’s the rape scene.
These are paraphrased right out of the script.
I agree with you to a degree that you can’t really condemn a film until you’ve seen it, but nothing of what i’ve read has interested me in the least. It all reads as being so exploitative.
Nicol D
“8) If you really think the words ‘daring’ and ‘Oscar’ were never used by Dakota’s people in choosing this role for her, you are so painfully naive that I wish I could live in a world with that blissful ignorance.”
I have the investors package which uses the words “Awards Potential” and “Guaranteed to play at Sundance” almost every other paragraph.
It says that the part was chosen by Fanning because of the “Award Potential” of the project. I remember remarking when i first read it that the Sundance Guarantee seemed ‘odd’, and that i read the words “Award Potential” so many times that they lost all meaning.
Isn’t Fanning’s mother her agent, or doesn’t she at least play a large part in choosing her projects? I seem to remember her mother actively working to get Fanning this role.
Anghus,
Thanks for the info. It doesn’t make me feel any better but does tell me my gut was right.
I just wish more people could get out of they’re left/right box on this one.
“guaranteed to play at Sundance”…says it all.
Nicol D, i’m with you on that. I don’t think this is a left/right thing, it’s a good taste/poor taste sort of thing.
It made me uneasy reading the script, and i think it’s sad that a young actress has to do something like this to be taken ‘seriously’. Though, i believe that she didn’t really have to play this part for that to happen, as everyone was already well aware of her talent.
Like i said, it seems like an odd choice. The left will embrace the portrayal, no matter how good or bad the final product is. The right will go apeshit and give them more free press than any one independent film needs.
I think it puts the nail in the coffin of her as a family box office draw. I can’t see many more kid friendly roles coming to her after parents hear about this, and thanks to the media, who will be relentless about this subject, they will. So, at age 12 (or 13, i dont know how old she is), she now will have to find roles for teenage girls that don’t involve family fare, because it will equate to box office poison.
What I’m saying is…if the film sucks or is gratuitous or bad, people won’t go see it. If what Anghus wrote is true and was filmed the way it was written, HOUNDDOG sounds terrible! And pointless. And lame.
I’m no liberal, I just think the people will speak and this thing will either fly or tank. Do I want to see a little girl being raped or having simulated sex? No. But what if it is filmed in a way that just implies those things? What if *gasp* it’s actually a well done movie!?! I mean, my father-in-law who is a hardcore liberal refuses to see BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN because he idolizes cowboys and the old west and doesn’t want to see gay cowboys. He made a choice not to see a film and that’s o.k. People can choose, we don’t need others to tell us what we should and shouldn’t see.
Anghus,
I agree. I feel sorry for Dakota. I agree with you that her child fare is now over and now she will be forced to find more adult roles…whatever that means. I see her as a victim of a cynical Hollywood ‘arts’ establishment. What, Charlotte’s Web isn’t good enough fare for her agents and backers to get behind at the posh industry party’s?
I certainly would not boycott her in another child role, but many will. She is a victim in this.
Petaluma,
This is not Brokeback Mountain. This is a child actress being exploited cynically by adults for crtical kudos and cheap awards gain. Her mother should be ashamed.
Trust me, her handlers didn’t tell her to take this role for her sake…
Petaluma, if the film is an outstanding achievement, then all of this will be little more than meaningless pre-release banter. Sometimes really good movies have a way of quelling the offended masses.
I think people are always going to be sensitive about the subject of child molestation. Consentual gay cowboy sex is one thing, children and sexual abuse is quite another.
The topic doesn’t bother me so much as the way this whole movie has played out. It feels like the role was taken because of the controversial aspects of the script, the film has been marketed on those same controversial aspects, and rather than trying to rise above the controversey, the filmmakers are embracing it and riding it all the way to the buzz bank. If i hadn’t read all these materials, if i hadn’t seen the constant focus on the project not being about helping people see a side of child abuse that has not been filmed before, but of the amazing “award winning potential” of it, i might not have such a bad taste in my mouth about it.
Just one guy’s opinion, that’s all.
A big sales news!
Fox Searchlight has bought Adrienne Shelly’s “Waitress”
http://weblogs.variety.com/fest_central/2007/01/sales_we_got_sa.html
I don’t understand why everybody is getting on their high horse about this “poor little actress” being exploited. The whole point of acting is to be exploited. She’s an eleven or twelve year old ACTRESS who understands, I’m sure, that what she is acting out is not supposed to be a pleasant experience. If she is as old as she is and hasn’t heard of sex or rape, then her education is sorely lacking. Rape is a part of our culture, unfortunately, and I don’t really understand what harm could come to Dakota by filming a scene where she is PRETENDING to have a bad sexual experience. You should be feeling sorry for all the poor girls and boys who aren’t pretending and have to suffer through the tragic reality of being molested or raped rather than the Hollywood actress making millions and slumming it in an Indie film. But the thing is, I’m not really sure what you think the traumatic effect is going to be on Dakota Fanning? That she won’t want to be harmed? And how about what kind of positive effect this could have for all of the kids who might see this movie and come to terms with their own negative experiences? I haven’t read the script, but it’s possible.
I think the whole business of filmmaking is exploitive, especially when it comes to Sundance films that seem especially mired in sexual perversity this year. And I think sometimes these explotive films are powerful and sometimes they are not, but you cannot start censoring what people can and cannot do as long as it is within the confines of the law. Dakota Fanning has parents and her well-being should be their concern, not ours.
It’s hard to say without seeing it. I’m not the world’s biggest Fanning fan, so it’s not something that would top my must-see list. But for the sake of debate I’ll say that the way it’s done will be the end of the argument. It’s not a pleasant subject. It’s a subject that demands that we turn away from it. Unfortunately, it’s also such a prevalent problem that it also demands treatment in the art forms. Assuming that art ultimately should deal with the entirety of human experience. So, it’s a valid subject to approach with film.
I do agree that the quality of the filmmaking and the integrity of the work will decide whether it’s worthwhile or not, regardless of the actress involved. My assumption is that the material existed before Fanning was involved, so I doubt Deborah Kampmeier woke up one morning and said, My fortune requires that I film Dakota Fanning getting raped!” Material is created, material finds talent. For whatever reasons. And life is too short to parse motivations behind casting.
I hope, like I do for pretty much every film, that this work somehow tracscends the subject matter. That it elevates the art form and opens new vista from which we can observe our shared condition.
The chances of that are slim, as those hopes are regularly dashed with most releases. But until I find out otherwise I’ll hang onto hoping this film will be something special. Then again, I hold hope that The Messengers turns out to be a truly terrifying gjost story.
It’s probably dangerous to hold such hopeless hopes, but you never know.
Do people really think this movie is going to be as big as Fahrenheir 9/11 (domestic gross $119m)?
It seems vastly more likely its fate will be closer to Shortbus (domestic gross $2m). Publicity from the noise machine in a case like this won’t go very far.
Nicol: your assertion that you can judge any movie merely by watching the trailers and listening to what others say about it is ridiculous. It’s anti-intellectual. The movie you constantly bring up as an example, CATWOMAN, is one thing; a script-impaired airheaded comic book movie that revealed where it was going in the costume designs. But small-scale ‘art’ fare like this movie, believe it or not, actually does have to be seen to be criticized.
Did you see Happiness, or Palindromes, or Shortbus, or any other small-scale movie or did you just pre-judge them and sit back and relax? You do art a disservice by painting everything with the same crap paintbrush.
jeff, what color is the sky in your world?
No one is saying that Hounddog will be as big financially. What we were saying is that it will be a bigger release ‘hot potato’ in terms of how it gets released.
And jeff, if you think the publicity on this won’t hold, you’re nuts. The movie hasn’t even been screened yet and Hannity, O’Reilley, and others are already talking about the film. Movies with sexual content will only get people talking so long. Movies where conservatives cry ‘child pornography’ is quite another. This story will have legs.
So what is your guess for its actual gross? I can’t imagine it making more than $15 million, tops, and all of that hype will have been merely to the benefit of the noise machine and higher TV ratings. Child-rape gets people hot and bothered, but in the end it won’t get a lot of butts in seats.
jeff what are you talking about? The Woodsman was a box office smash. I hear a sequel is in the works as we speak. It might be a trilogy.
I have The Woodsman 2: Who’s Your Daddy? on my Netflix queue.
Excellent. Let me know how it is.
Sony hasn’t even talked to the Weapons team yet, I’d double check that alleged sale one more time before you post it to the world.
Judging the content of a film based on the script is ludicrous. Films are shaped during the editing process. A rape scene that reads terrifyingly on the page may end up being shot and edited completely differently.
The movie is screening today. People should wait 24 hours and read the reaction instead of angrily pounding out hundreds of words about something unseen.
Wreck,
#1. were idly speculating on a movie that has a lot of hype. Idle speculation is about half of all online conversation on film. If we didn’t discuss movies before they opened, we’d have nothing to do half the time.
#2. i can’t speak for anyone else, but i’m not angry. i’m fascinated, but i’m not angry.
why does everyone always assume that contrary points online are done with clenched jaws and fists. am i the only one who enjoys healthy debate?
Considering how much you’ve written about this project, I assumed you felt passionately outraged about it. My mistake if not true.
Anghus, your big argument seems to be that if it’s a well-done movie, then it’s fine that Dakota Fanning gets raped in it. But what if it’s not a particularly good film but it aspires to be one? Does that mean it’s morally objectionable? Is it only offensive to you if it’s a bad film?
I’m all for the debate, I’m not angry either. It’s hard to read an emotion in a post UNLESS IT’S WRITTEN LIKE THIS!!!!! It’s all good. But I still think the proof is in the pudding and the pudding is the film itself. I’m more offended by Oscar pandering than an exploitative role or film.
Noah,
i don’t really have an argument. If the subject matter of child molestation and sexual abuse is handled well and turns out to not be as creepy as it’s written (and it’s creepy, trust me), then yes, it would make it much easier to stomach. I’m not as creeped out by the Rape scene as i am the stuff like the girl dancing naked for tickets and watching her dad masturbate. It’s not the sexual content that bugs me, it’s sexual content as an excuse for character development, and that’s how it reads. Again, the finished film could be completely different from what i’m reading. I’m really not denouncing the film for anyone else. I’m just saying that i personally found the material a little too much.
Wreck, no worries. I can understand the mistake. I’m only talking about it because i’ve read a lot about it. If i’m informed on a subject, i tend to be more verbose.
But again, i’m just engaged in a debate. If people want to run out and see Dakota Fanning watching David Morse masturbate and get raped, go for it. It’s just not my cup of tea.
i do think this film will be a big sticking point with the conservatives and their “culture war” schtick. Maybe unveiling this film just after Charlotte’s Web gave them the perfect ammunition
David Morse is the dad? Somehow that makes it worse. I’d rather think about the dental vaginas.
It’s Vagina DENTATA people…get it right.
And I hear TEETH takes an iffy subject matter (toothy vaginas) and handles it cleverly and well. Are you going to bash it too Armond…err..Nicol..?
Well Anghus, considering you’ve read the script and I haven’t, I suppose I will have to allow that you know more about this film than I do so I will have to take you at your word that the sexual content is not serving the characters in any way. Although, I think the trauma of a rape or watching your father masturbate can help to explain why a person may react to things differently. I guess the thing is, if the whole purpose of the film is just to have these scenes, then I agree it’s probably not worth seeing. But, if these are merely scenes as part of a larger whole, then maybe they are worthwhile.
The sad thing is that things like this happen, little girls are abused and it sucks. We can ignore it and say to ourselves, “I’d rather not munch my popcorn and watch that on screen” or we can open our eyes up, see how truly horrific and disgusting it is and maybe it will have a positive impact. I suppose I’m idealistic like that, thinking that if film reflects societal truths, it will expose them to the people. But, I think the awful truth is that because of coversations like this, reducing the film to nothing more than “The Dakota Fanning rape movie” is going to do more harm than good. It’s already too late.
We need a poll, just to find out what people find more offensive in film
Children Being Abused
Toothy Vaginas
Interspecies Erotica
I’m only offended by the first one…and you can add Vin Diesel to that list. And Ashton Kutcher.
i was watching something about the Guardian, and every time i hear Kutcher yell, all i can think of is Kelso from That 70’s Show
Noah
“We can ignore it and say to ourselves, “I’d rather not munch my popcorn and watch that on screen” or we can open our eyes up, see how truly horrific and disgusting it is and maybe it will have a positive impact.”
I do not believe you believe this. In other words unless you see the act of child-rape on film you have no idea how horrible it is?
I have never seen a film of the millions Joseph Stalin killed but I have a pretty good idea that it was a monstrous act. I have never seen a narrative film of Tianamen Square but I know it was horrific.
The facile notion that we must see something depicted by wealthy actors, actresses and directors in Hollywood before we can understand it is ludicrous.
Jeff MCM,
Get outta the sixties. I do not give the makers of Catwoman benefit of the doubt because I know why they make their film.
I also know why the makers of HoundDog make their film. As Anghus wrote, ‘guaranteed to screen at Sundance’. Again, fuck right and left; are you that naive?
As for films like ShortBus…good grief. I saw enough white, blotchy skinned students jerking off on camera in the name of art in film school.
You wanna be intellectual, read some Aquinas and Kierkegaard and we’ll talk.
Sometimes Jeff, being truly intellectual is having the courage to reject the conventions you are supposed to have as an ‘intellectual’.
Nicol,
You think you know the brutality of rape just because you know the physical implications of it or maybe you’ve seen the aftermath of it? And how about all the people who choose to ignore the news and don’t read history books and never would have known a thing about the Holocaust until it was depicted with wealthy actors and actresses and directed by Steven Spielberg? Oh sure, they knew that it was a terrible thing that happened to all those people, but they didn’t understand the scope of it and the implications of it until that movie reached a mass audience and showed people what they couldn’t even imagine.
So you think there aren’t people who won’t be affected by the sight of a “wealthy Hollywood actress” being abused on screen? Perhaps someone might be affected to join in the fight to stop atrocities like this from happening. Or maybe we can just ignore that it happens, not put it into our art and hope for the best. Look, you don’t want to see the movie that’s fine. I can understand that it might not be everyone’s cup of tea and all that, but you don’t have to scream that it shouldn’t be made because you have no idea whom it could affect. Maybe YOU don’t need to see it to understand it, but you perhaps some people DO. If you don’t like it, don’t see it, but you have some nerve to tell people what they should or should not put into their art.
“your big argument seems to be that if it’s a well-done movie, then it’s fine that Dakota Fanning gets raped in it. But what if it’s not a particularly good film but it aspires to be one? Does that mean it’s morally objectionable? Is it only offensive to you if it’s a bad film?”
For the record, Fanning isn’t actually getting raped in the film. Meaning the actress isn’t, the character is. If the actress was raped for the film, it could be the second coming of Citizen Kane and it would still be a piece of junk. Since it’s just the character, we’ll have to wait and see as far as quality is concerned.
I also wouldn’t get too worked up over the wording from the prospectus. It’s tough to raise money for a feature. Usually you’re not talking to people who are going to respond to the artistic vision you have for your project. But sprinkle in a few references to “Sundance” and “awards” and “vigorous after-market revenue streams” and you have some people who will sit at the table. It’s not pretty and it’s not what we would like the process to be. But in the end you’re putting on a big show to get people to sign over very large checks for something that, in all likelihood, will not make its money back. You have to play up the flashy possibilities. In other words, I’m sure the wording in that document is not far different than in similar documents for just about any independent feature regardless of content. Our feelings toward it shouldn’t change just because in this instance it happens to deal with an ugly subject.
Nicol:
You’re being arrogant. I have a pretty good idea that Catwoman was made as a cheap action movie for teens, but I’m not going to be so presumptuous to know what Hounddog is all about, having not read the script, not seen a trailer, not read any reviews. Subject matter alone is not enough for me to pre-judge any film. I understand that you think you’ve seen it all and can predict the crassness of motives regardless, and you may be right in this case, but that doesn’t make you any less pompous or pretentious in your judgments.
For example: Shortbus. It was a very good film which you have disdained. Ultimately, it’s your loss, both in having missed the movie, and in having no argument to legitimately criticize it since you haven’t seen it.
I agree that being an intellectual means sometimes rejecting conventions, but judging a work of art without seeing it doesn’t make you an intellectual; it makes you a snob and a boor.
And I really feel like conservatives are vastly more obsessed with the 60s than anyone else.
“Oh sure, they knew that it was a terrible thing that happened to all those people, but they didn’t understand the scope of it and the implications of it until that movie reached a mass audience and showed people what they couldn’t even imagine.”
Schindler’s List is a brilliant piece of art and Spielberg is a true consumate artist, all mediums considered.
But:
1) If the only way people know of history is through movies that more often than not get history wrong, then we are already doomed. Look at how many people get their history from junk like The DaVinci Code. Schindler’s List itself is the exception, not the rule.
2) Are you really saying that the director of Hounddog is going to be at the level of Steven Spielberg? I can say ‘no’ to that without seeing a frame of her work because on principal, artists of that calibre are so rare that we probably won’t see another for quite some time. And their work will touch millions; not just the elites at Sundance.
As for your other point:
What do you think is more probable?
A man who fantasizes of raping an 11 year old girl will:
1) see Dakota Fanning in a sexual context, be overcome with remorse and change his life
or
2) see Dakota Fanning in a sexual context and the film as a form of gratification and the film an affirmation of his urges.
We’ve seen graphic murders depicted on film all the time; Do we have more or less murder in society?
We see graphic depictions of rape of women on film? Are women not raped in our culture any more.
Gang culture has been very prevalent in media depictions since Colours in the late ’80’s. Are there fewer gang problems in big cities now?
Let’s not be naive fools. This is no longer the sixties. I love many hard R rated films, but if I am honest I have to admit, culture hasn’t gotten better the more we see graphic sex and violence on film as a society…it’s gotten worse.
It doesn’t enlighten us…it normalizes it and then we need more graphic depictions for our next fix.
Hey, I love adult R rated films, but this will be no Letters from Iwo Jima. Let’s do artists a favour and start holding them to a higher standard. We’ll get better films a a result. This is not about subject matter…it’s about how you depict it.
Again I ask, do you really need to see an 11 year old girl getting raped on camera to know it is bad?
If you do…then we are already lost. I ask you, what kind of adult would pay an 11 year old to depict rape on camera and then flount it as an ‘Award Winner’ and ‘guaranteed to be screened at Sundance’. What kind of adult would do that? Do you think that adult can contribute anything to the discussion?
You’re blaming gang violence on a Sean Penn movie?
I reject this whole argument. Society hasn’t gotten ‘worse’ because of the depiction of violence on screen. The national murder rate in 1980 was 10.2 per 100,000. In 2004 it was 5.5. Does that mean that movies have become half as violent in that 24-year span?
JeffMCM,
If wanting to live in a society where adults don’t pay 11 year old girls to depict rape and sex on film so that the elites at Sundance can feel enlightened makes me a snob then just call me Snobby Mc Snobbelin.
But then again, I am not being fetted around at Sundance by the media and Robert Redford, eating 45 dollar bricks of cheese because I paid an 11 year old actress to squeal on cue.
Whose the snob again?
What is your source for that stat Jeff and what kind of murder are you talking about?
And no…I am not blaming a Sean Penn movie. I am talking culture. Very different discussion.
Hey Snobby McSnobbelin (you could have done better – clearly you mean ‘McSnobsalot’), if you want to blame a movie for gang violence, choose The Godfather or Scarface or any John Woo movie – that’s where most gang members learned how to hold their guns.
But you’re right: a real snob would know how to spell ‘who’s’.
What kind of murder? What difference does that make?
Colors was very highly regarded as a look into a world that had been ignored up to that time. Not as a piece of exploitative entertainment. But I can’t really defend it – because I haven’t seen it.
FBI statistics via Infoplease.com: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0873729.html
How do you know the director of Hounddog is not as good as Spielberg if you’ve never seen the film? Maybe you should hold your judgments on an artist’s merit until you’ve actually seen the work of art. If you think that no filmmaker will ever be as good as Spielberg or Kubrick or Hitchcock or “insert director here”, then why do you even go to the movies or bother to talk about them?
The truth, sad as it might be, is that people DO get information from movies. To not portray child rape in a movie is to deny that it exists. There are countless books written that have terrible, awful things in them, including child rape but we do not get up in arms about that. Film is a visual medium, so this is the way it is portrayed in a film, by SHOWING you what happens.
I think that if a man is sick enough to want to rape children, then Hounddog will neither make him better or worse. My hope is that all the people who see it might view it as a problem that needs to be addressed instead of there being mothers/fathers who don’t believe their children when they say that something awful has happened to them.
“This is not about subject matter…it’s about how you depict it.”
But you don’t even know how it’s depicted because you haven’t seen it. How about holding yourself to a higher standard of judging art? You think that our culture is bad because we have violent films? Look at Japanese movies and how gory and violent those films are, yet they don’t have the amount of murders that the US does. So, get off your soapbox and start trying to find a different answer to that question instead of pointing your finger at films.
Again, Nicol, I answer you: I do not NEED to see an 11 year old girl raped to know it is bad. But, perhaps 1) the film has merit and it’s a crucial scene and 2) perhaps others do need to see it to understand that this is something that happens.
One ugly part of the industry is that regardless of what you are trying to put on the screen, generally, at some point you have to sell your work like a piece of meat. It’s sad that that’s true. Again, I wouldn’t condemn the people behind Hounddog for the wording in their proposals and letters of interest. Unfortunately, if you are an unknown or lesser known quality you pretty much have to hit the hot button words and references (and hopefully have the talent and ability to back it up) and hope it gets your film made.
So, to answer the question of what kind of adult would do this I would answer an adult trying to get their film made. Once I see the film I’ll have a better idea of that adult’s sensibilities and values. Until then I can only assume they’re playing the business end of the game like we all do. And, it seems in this case, playing it rather successfully. But often what it takes to get the film on screen and the art and talent behind the images in that film are so far apart. One comes from a personal place and the other is about as impersonal and crass as human interactivity gets. Some of the most beautiful films I’ve ever seen were made based on some of the most insidious business deals on record. The art doesn’t pardon the way of doing business. But I can’t allow the act of doing buisness to take away my appreciation of the art. They’re two different animals.
Nicol, I have to also point out that, as you have in the past, its your class resentments that you are displaying. We don’t know if the Hounddog directors are even liberals, despite your assumption, and we don’t know that they’re eating $45 cheese – but your assumption that they are, and that that’s one of the things that makes them artistically suspect, is revealing (or would be if it hadn’t been revealed a long time ago).
So Nicol- LOLITA holds no merit as a film or as a book due to it’s subject matter?
To address a separate issue, the research as to how entertainment affects behavior is really all over the place. And it leads one to wonder, when children were molested before films or TV were invented, what did they have to blame it on? The people who tallied up the thousands upon thousands dead in the years before someone figured out how to shine lights through a series of still images didn’t need film or TV to show them how to be inhumane. Yes, there’s more crime and voilence now than there was on the average a hundred years ago. There’s also a great deal many more people and human activity in general scales with population. It’s a slippery slope to pin all ills on the glowing wall or tube.
And, in my book, shining a light into our dark, guarded corners is a great start in addressing our flaws. It’s when we keep them under the carpet that they tend to flourish. To use some already introduced examples, Stalin and Hitler were able to do as much damage as they did largely because they controlled how much people knew about it. It’s far easier to get away with depravity when you can hide it. I’m all for dragging those light-sensitive demons into the blinding day. (Pardon my bullshit tendency towards poetics.)
Just to be clear on some misconceptions thrown around in this thread:
* The murder rate has declined significantly in the past 20 years (already cited)
* The rqate of teenage pregnancies has significantly decreased in the past 20 years (http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/2006/09/12/USTPstats.pdf)
* The U.S. abortion rate has steadily decreased in the past 15 years (http://www.guttmacher.org/in-the-know/incidence.html)
Heaven save us from untitled Dakota Fanning rape projects because we’re clearly already halfway to hell!
Wrecktum,
i remember reading those stats before i went into a meeting regarding this tv show, and all these people we’re like “crime is worse than it’s ever been in New York City”, and i replied “actually, violent crime has been down 40% in New York since 1999, and the most recent study shows…” and when i looked up, blank stares everywhere.
There’s this mentality that things keep getting worse. Then again 80% of people polled believe the world will end in their lifetime.
We’re a downer of a society sometimes.
The irony of the ‘violence in the media causes violence in real life’ argument is that it’s based on a perception: because people see more violence in the media, they think it’s _actually happening_ and therefore real life must be more violent as well.
If the media didn’t keep pushing the idea that things are somehow worse, how would advertisers ever sell us useless crap we think we need to feel better?
From all the hoopla on this blog you’d be forgiven in thinking that people find raping children somewhat offensive.
Lighten up people, it’s 2007 !
The media does horribly oversell the violence aspect of it all. Keeping everyone tense all the time is how control is maintained.
Here’s another piece of wood to keep the fire burning:
Would there be this level of outrage over Hounddog if, say, instead of Dakota Fanning, it starred Shareeka Epps?
jeff, i say “no” there would not be this level of outrage. Of course people are going to be more outraged when it’s the lily white family film darling.
It’s the modern of equivilent of watching Shirley Temple get molested in a film in the thirties.
It probably wouldn’t have been financed if it starred Shareeka Epps.
Shirley Temple was the most popular star at the boxoffice in the ’30s. Hardly the same thing.
A proper comparison to Shirley Temple would be a movie starring Will Smith getting buggered. Which I’d pay to see.
I think you’re both right.
Hey Anghus, what movie was that again? Heidi Goes to the Wrong Side of the Tracks?
Murder has been half the per capita rate in NYC & Chicago & LA compared to 1992–still is.
We are doing well on murder nationwide, but not so good per capita on sexual assault and hit and run killings which is, in part, due to increased reporting compared to 20 yrs ago.
Much of the hoopla on crime/violence comes from the fact that much of gangster activity has moved to moderate sized villas that previously saw little organized crime, since they have been shut down in the big cities.
“It’s the modern of equivilent of watching Shirley Temple get molested in a film in the thirties.”
Or being whistled at by a black boy (Imagine the conversation!):
“C’mon Shirley, gasp just a little bit louder. Camera unit 1 close up as she succumbs to the vapors and swoons. No Shirley, wince harder now, there’s an ambassadorship in this for you someday remember. You’ll get more mature roles for sure; just like Mae West!”
I’m not getting some of the logic here. I think we’d all agree that whatever someone wants to call art between consenting adults, no problem. But when it comes to children, the law of the land changes. Child pornography is illegal – hopefully we’d also agree that’s not a liberal or conservative issue. If some guy selling kiddie porn on the internet tells the FBI it’s art, or that the child was just acting, or that the child had a body suit or that he cropped out the bad stuff, or that he’s taking it to Sundance or that he’s one of the top photographers in the world so it’s art – the FBI isn’t going to say, well that’s okay then, and leave. If he says he’s the parent and he’s given his consent for his child to do this, the FBI wouldn’t agree. If he said he wanted his child to be challenged artistically, the FBI wouldn’t agree. Also, I’ve never seen child pornography, and don’t want to – and don’t need to, to know that I don’t agree with it. The law doesn’t tell people to go ahead and make kiddie porn and then they’ll decide if it’s illegal or not. It’s illegal.
I don’t agree with “celebrity justice” and I wonder if we have a tendency to cut slack in these areas because this wasn’t made in a basement – it’s got name actors – and so, what, it’s not slimy? Is whatever the degree of talent involved really the point, ever?
Initially I thought this sounded like misguided Hollywood parents out to get their child awards and acclaim in a sick way and definitely sleazy on the part of the makers, but was open to see the results as usual. I also found it interesting that Robin Wright Penn was in it and wondered if it had some redeeming value, but now I question myself, what is that about – stick a “hollywood” sticker on it and it’s okay? It reminds me of something Bryan Singer said at a screening of his movie Public Access when the audience was pretty much disgusted with it and told him so. And he said something about, well, that was his point, that some news anchor can say all kinds of things and it becomes the truth – we give him or her credibility because they’re on television. And i digress, this is about children – but still – what are we allowing here?
After reading what Anghus wrote about the script and the investors package, well, again, between consenting adults, whatever, but you put in children, and it changes.
If some guy was selling this over the internet – it wouldn’t be legal. He’d be in jail. I have to think if some guy was even shopping that script over Craigslist, he’d be in jail. Do we have a double standard – for children – because it’s Hollywood? And is that okay?
You make valid points, scout. The only response is that this film is not child pornography. Or, more strictly speaking, it’s not designed to be child pornography. Whether it’s accepted as child pornography is another issue. The movie will have to be viewed to make that determination.
Scout, it’s not child pornography because Dakota Fanning does not actually get raped and does not get naked. It’s a movie, dude. And if you want to yell at someone because you are so disgusted by it, then yell at her parents who I’m assuming read the script and helped her choose the role. They are her legal guardians and were most likely on set for those scenes. I don’t think parents are usually there when creeps videotape their naked children…unless they are the creeps doing it. But, you need to chill out because there is nothing seedy about the actual filming of it. She’s eleven or twelve years old, I’m sure she understands what sex is, so what is the actual damage being done to Dakota Fanning?
Yes, but I was wondering why that was – why are we saying it isn’t child pornography, but art – isn’t it a double standard? If I’d read about some guy doing this film in his basement, and that he was in jail for it, with excerpts from the script as anghus noted, I’d be glad the creep was far away from kids. Why does the Hollywood setting make it okay? The FBI wouldn’t tell the guy in his basement to make the movie and then they’d decide if it was porn. It doesn’t work that way in the basement/child porn industry – why does it work that way in Hollywood? I mean, if the guy who made the film in his basement took it to Sundance, would we suddenly say it’s okay and it’s art? I can go there with adult fare, but with kids, it seems like the logic becomes shallow, hollow, trite. Like we’ve let the children down for someone’s perception of art. Which pretty much sucks.
It’s absurd to call this pornography since, once again, NOBODY HAS SEEN IT. Except for the people who saw it today at Sundance and I’m sure we’ll hear from them shortly.
It also depends on how you define ‘child pornography’. Just because someone can get off on something doesn’t mean it should be banned.
Missed your comment, Scout: The difference is that, in a Hollywood setting, there would be a licensed studio teacher monitoring the shooting, and probably a contract outlined between the producers and the parents limiting what would and wouldn’t be acceptable, and all kinds of supervision that some dude in his basement would not have. It’s actually a pretty big difference. I don’t think that Sundance screeners would let in your hypothetical ‘basement movie’ without a lot of assurances, personal and documented, that said hypothetical ‘basement art’ was legit and on the up-and-up. I hate to say it, but you need to learn about how movies work before you get all ‘why isn’t any
Sorry, cont:
…one thinking about the children?” on us here.
I know how movies work, have been involved in them. Maybe there was some licensed professional. But that just seems to underscore the point. It seems like we’re taking what, under more pedestrian circumstances, would be called child porn, and making it slick and professional and Hollywood, and saying it’s art and it’s okay. Dakota may be incredibly smart and gifted and mature, but she’s still a child, just eleven or twelve when this was filmed.
I’m on the fence about this, I see both sides, just bringing up what feels like my own double standard.
But the argument doesn’t make much sense. It’s like saying, “Why aren’t the makers of THE HITCHER arrested for putting out a film where people are murdered when some guy making snuff films in his basement would be immediately thrown in prison?” (And please don’t take that as any sentiment against the makers of the HITCHER remake being jailed just for the hey of it.) For a simple reason: One is a made-up professional film project and the other is a crime.
Something tells me Fanning’s parents weren’t handed some grubby currency and asked to look the other way while David Morse (an incredibly alented actor and personally decent man) raped their daughter. The script was read. It was discussed. Somewhere among all of the people in the Fanning camp (and trust me a star like that has a camp) they make the decision that this is the way to go. Even if it can potentially alienate her core audience. For whatever reason, they decided to go forward with the project and I doubt any of that reason was so somebody could get their rocks off or because someone figured out how much it would cost to score with Dakota Fanning. (It should also be noted in the midst of all of this “just like some guy in the basement” musings that the writer and director of this film is a woman.)
So, they make the film and it’s done on the professional up and up. Which means that the child is surrounded by handlers and protectors. The set is controlled and- guess what?- no one actually has sex with the actress. Weird how that works and yet it does.
Again, this film could come out and we all discover it’s a pile of trash. (I’m not a big fan of the director’s first film, actually.) But it’s kind of naiive and shows a certain level of inexperience in the world and the industry to think that something like this with the people involved on almost every level of its making and festival distribution is comparable to a work of child porn.
I seriously doubt that Ms. Fanning was victimized on the set of this film. Any more than she’s been victimized by being thrust in the spotlight and required to grow up very fast in the industry. But the damage of that- if there is any- was done long before Hounddog was a glimmer on Deborah Kampmeier’s synapses.
It’s almost laughable that there’s a person drawing a parallel between a FICTIONAL film and actual child rape being caught on film. I mean, was Jodie Foster used and abused in THE ACCUSED when she was filmed being raped? Of course not. Don’t be silly.
And where are the reviews for this flick? It’s 10:30 here on the west coast so it’s 11:30 there…
Wow…just…wow:
http://www.bluelineradio.com/dakotafanningscript.html
This site is all about looking out for us feeble minded Americans and protecting Dakota Fanning. So much so if you go to their blog, you can watch Saddam Hussein be executed. I find it just a wee bit ironic that the people trying to “protect Dakota” take huge issue with a fictional film but like…revel in letting anyone who wants to (kids) watch Saddam get hung. Fucking hypocritical morons.
Anghus- they have the same script breakdown you posted, almost word for word. Dunno where they got it. I got the link off the IMDB page though…which is also good for a laugh. A sad, sorry laugh.
From the main page of the site Petaluma links to above:
“Right from the beginnings of the show we jumped into the Dakota Fanning Hound Dog controversy.
…The second half of the show, segments 3 and 4, were about spouses killing spouses..”
Obviously a classy program with an eye on the public interest and only incidentally on titillation.
I must not be communicating very well. Szasa, Petaluma – not the comparison I’m making at all. In child porn, it’s also “just” pictures of children. A photo of a child just standing there is illegal. Don’t want to beat this into the ground. Szasa, I get everything you’re saying. Yes, she’s got handlers out the wazoo, whatever.
Petaluma, don’t even want to go to that site. I guess I just agree with Anghus – I read that script and it feels exploitive. To each his own.
A photo of a child just standing there with clothes on is illegal? And if it’s illegal for the filmmakers to have a child actress act in a rape scene then why haven’t there been arrests made, Scout? Seriously, chill out dude, it’s a movie, it’s not child porn. They are not the same thing, stop trying to equate them.
That bluelineradio site link was posted here several months ago. If I’m not mistaken, it was anghus who originally brought up the site in a previous heated discussion about the now-titled Dakota Fanning rape project.
So Scout, do you agree that parents who take photos of their underage children bathing or otherwise less than fully-clothed for artistic purposes and family archives should be prosecuted and put in jail for engaging in child pornography as well?
Methinks you’re a card and you should be dealt with…
I only ask because such a mom was prosecuted in Ohio in 2000. Not sure how you want to deal with me.
Anghus! Nicol! Would you wake up and talk to Jeff? I gotta go hide my photo albums!
“I only ask because such a mom was prosecuted in Ohio in 2000. Not sure how you want to deal with me.”
What? Just out of curiousity, what happened to this mom? How old was the child?
JeffMCM,
First off, cut out the grade six debating tactics. It doesn’t make you come off as intelligent, it makes you come off as desperate.
If you really think critiquing a typo in a quickly typed comment section is valid argument…well you do, because you can’t back up your ideas with fact or logic.
Also, remember, quoting stats arbitrarily and out of context is bad argument. What is the method? Who took them? What are they being used for? Are they corroborated? What are the trends? What’s the big picture?
These things are not as facile as you like to believe, friend.
And I never wrote any one film is responsible for anything. I wrote about cultural fabric, of which films are a part of. Are you really going to tell me there is less of a problem with gangs then there was 50 years ago?
That the prevalence of misogynistic hardcore rap, videos and films do not normalize and encourage a gang culture as well as reflect it?
Let’s put it another way…if your argument is that films do not affect us at all; that they do not over time influence how we think and feel and act; then you have defacto killed any argument in favour of Hounddog being anything but exploitation.
To all the defenders I ask again; what do you think is more likely in a year?
A) Men who consider having sex with an 11 year old girl will have an about face after seeing the film and change their ways. (Did all rapes stop after The Accused?)
or
B) Still frames of Dakota in various sexual situations from Hounddog will find their way onto pay and free porn and celeb sites on the internet so men can gratify themselves to it?
Remember, even David Lynch self censored the DVD of Mulholland Drive to protect the actress from the internet exploitation he knew would follow.
Also remember, the issue here is not whether the film should have been made or the subject matter approached. The issue is paying an 11 year old to depict it for shock value. Were there no young looking Ellen Page types available?
The debate is officially circling in on itself and no one is going to move any closer to consensus. So be it. The film exists. If you don’t want to see it, you won’t see it. If you do, you will. Some people will see it for the right reasons. Some people will see it for the wrong reasons. It may have a positive effect on some people who see it. It may send someone with a leaning toward the darkness to go astray. In that regard it will be like just about 85% of all written, filmed, or otherwise distributed material. In a species where even the teachings of peaceful leaders has lead to some of the most horrible violence imaginable, we shouldn’t expect much less. If you think society and culture as a whole is going down the drain, nothing will ever change your mind. No amount of debate and no amount of good art. Those who think we are doomed victims of decisions made long ago or the behavior of certain sects of the population will never see otherwise without the intervention of some catastrophic or otherwise disruptive event. Whether it be the return of Christ, the advent of global warming, or- as one author is putting forth in a recent book- the Muslim world’s justified war on our permissive culture, some can’t accept improvement unless it involves the destruction of something. And to them this film will be further proof of our need for that.
For myself, I’ll be interested to see how the material is handled. My main motivator for seeing it as a longtime love and respect for the work of Mr. Morse. That will be something to see. If the film fails to transcend and illuminate it will be no better or worse than all but a handful of films released in a given year. That will remain to be seen.
Oscar nominations in half an hour. This drawn-out debate around child rape- real or simulated- has given me a case of the skeevies that only basking in Hollywood’s whoredom will assuage.
From Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel film critic Duane Dudek’s Sundance blog:
Nicol, I don’t know where to begin. You’re amazingly hypocritical, immature, and disengenuous.
First of all, you’ve been engaging in ‘sixth-grade tactics’ for as long as you’ve been on this blog, with your insistence on rhetorical and petty legalistic arguments to weasel your way out of sticky points. I am sure that you are either a trial lawyer or work in public relations. Yes, pointing our your typos is petty. It’s what you deserve.
Second, the stats I pulled were from the FBI, freely available. Find your own damn stats if you don’t believe them, but it is widely acknowleged that after peaking in the 70s-80s, crime declined in the 90s thanks to the economic boom, different reporting methods, and greater emphasis on law enforcement. By merely saying “I don’t buy these government statistics” you’re the one choosing to be facile. I wouldn’t be so naive as to say ‘Bill Clinton lowered crime’ or ‘The MPAA saved us’.
Next, gangs. I don’t automatically assume that gang violence is worse now than it has been in the whole of American history – as Lota said, gang violence only started to be noticed when it spilled out of ghettos.
And then back to Hounddog: while I agree that depictions of violence normalize and desensitize such behavior to some extent in the minds of some people, I reject the notion that they should therefore be…what, banned? If you’re attacking Hounddog for its violence, (which you have not seen) you have to broaden your attack and include movies by some of your favorite directors.
More importantly, movies do not encourage people to do things. I’m amazed we’re still having this argument after so many decades. People will commit crimes regardless. Rape didn’t go away after The Accused (don’t know why you think it would) but it didn’t spike, either. People didn’t start ripping hearts out of chests when Apocalypto came out.
I’m sure there will be people who will masturbate to Hounddog, but I’m sure there were people who could find a way to masturbate to Charlotte’s Web, too. These people will do what they want to do, movies or no movies.
“I am sure that you are either a trial lawyer or work in public relations. ”
He He.
So lemme get this straight. According to you, over the past while, you have said I am either
an elitist snob…
except when you infer I am a bitter victim of poverty engaged in class warfare…
or a trial lawyer…
except when you have inferred I am a bitter wanna be filmmaker who is a hanger on in the film industry.
Which do you think is closest?
“I’m sure there will be people who will masturbate to Hounddog, but I’m sure there were people who could find a way to masturbate to Charlotte’s Web, too.”
So then why have any standards at all, eh? Is that kind of what your relativist argument is? Taking this argument its logical conclusion, why protect children from anything? Is this kind of the way you see things?
As long as someone wants to film it and someone is willing to participate, it is valid, regardless of the age? Is this what you are saying? Be clear here.
The great thing, Nicol, is that I think you are all of those things. They are far from mutually exclusive. You can be a lawyer/PR guy who doesn’t make a lot of money and resents those who do (who you may encounter every day) who also has snobbish tastes. I have never said you were a wanna-be filmmaker, especially since you are a film-school dropout (right?)
If you want to clear up this mystery, feel free to tell us more about yourself.
Back to Hounddog, I don’t follow your argument re: ‘why protect children from anything’. And yes: as long as someone wants to film it and they and their parents find it acceptable and it isn’t breaking the law, then I have no business telling people what to do. And neither do you.
By the way, why aren’t you complaining about the exploitation of Andrew Simpson, the underage actor in Notes on a Scandal?
“…especially since you are a film-school dropout (right?)”
No.
You can believe whatever you want about me, Jeff. I don’t lose sleep over it. But boy, are you way off track.
“And yes: as long as someone wants to film it and they and their parents find it acceptable and it isn’t breaking the law, then I have no business telling people what to do. ”
Well that is the difference, Jeff.
You’re talking law…I’m talking morality and law intertwined and what should or should not be legal.
I have also never told anyone what they can and can’t do. I do not have the power to do so. I am not the law.
But I can certainly comment on what I feel is innapropriate and immoral behaviour. It is not breaking the law to teach your children racist beliefs…but I have no problem saying that parents who do, are hurting their children.
It is not illegal to rent an R rated video such as Bad Boys II, Trainspotting (take your pick of a hard R film) and show it to young children, but I think it is wrong to do so and robs children of precious moments of childhood.
Just as those who disagree with sending children to a ‘Jesus Camp’ have every right in a free society to voice their disapproval and so on.
That is the nature of democracy, Jeff. We can voice our disagreements and concerns and do our best to influence lawmakers to our way of thinking.
That is how it works.
Yeah, you can complain about whatever you want.
And I can call you a crackpot for it.
Everyone wins.
I guess the point I want to make is, if I was a parent, I would be more troubled by my kid being in garbage like The Santa Clause 3 and Unaccompanied Minors than a little indie Sundance movie.
(Of course, I have not seen Santa Clause 3 – maybe it’s great!)
Oh, final point: When they were both teenagers, Dana Plato was on Diff’rent Strokes and Jodie Foster was in Taxi Driver. Now one of them is dead and the other has won two Oscars. So, what role a child actor plays is hardly indicative of a childhood of misery and abuse.
A poster on another site wrote:
“For those concerned about Dakota Fanning going from a film where she talks to a piglet to one where she is raped, it is not just about how the scene appears in the final film. It’s about how long was the scene originally, how many takes did she have to do, how was the scene explained to her? I completely understand people being upset with the filmmakers and Dakota’s mother. I hate to think that a child may have lost her innocence for the sake of an apparently bad indie film.”
And it leaves me to wonder where the concern was for the actresses in The Color Purple. Do we just work up outrage when it’s a cute little white girl? Do we trust Spielberg more with our rape scenes than some indie director? Why didn’t people care that Fanning had to shoot scenes reacting to hundreds of dead bodies floating by her in WOW?
At the end of the story, we pick and choose our outrage. It isn’t consistent and it’s generally based on deep-seated cultural prejudices as it is.
Also, in the end, it appears that the film is not a good one. There. That’s the end of the story. It appears to not be a great movie, Fanning will continue to have more money than many third world countries put together, and we were busy debating this while our political systems (on both sides of the border) spin in turmoil.
Mission accomplished.