This is absolutely infuriating!
The movie "Hounddog" premiered at the Sundance Movie Festival this week - a tale about a 12-year old girl (Dakota Fanning) who is neglected and abused. One of the scenes depicts the girl being raped – note there is no nudity, the scene is very darkly lit, and all you can see of the girl is her hand and face. Now, here's what pissed me off:
Even before the first screening of "Hounddog" at the Sundance Film Festival this week, a Christian film critic, citing Fanning's age, decried the movie as child abuse, and Roman Catholic activist Bill Donohue called for a boycott.If that wasn't bad enough --
Ted Baehr, chairman of the Christian Film and Television Commission and publisher of the Web site movieguide.org, claims "Hounddog" breaks federal child-pornography law. He said the law covers material that "appears" to show minors engaging in sexually explicit conduct.It is very apparent Mr. Baehr knows absolutely nothing about Dakota Fanning, and shows a complete disregard for the competence of the movie's director, Deborah Kampmeier. Anyone who has ever seen an interview with Ms. Fanning knows she is a very intelligent girl. On this issue she said of the scene "It's not really happening. It's a movie, and it's called acting. I'm not going through anything. Cody and Isabelle (two other young actors in the film) aren't going through anything, their characters are. And for me, when it's done it's done. I don't even think about it anymore."
"Even if they're not actually performing the explicit act, we are dealing with a legal issue here," he said.
Baehr said Fanning is being exploited in the film, and that it should be considered an outrage.
"Children at 12 do not have the ability to make the types of decisions that we're talking about here," he said. "If we're offended by some comedian's racial slur, why aren't we offended by somebody taking advantage of a 12-year-old child?"
I applaud Ms. Kampmeier, who defends her position by stating she not only talked to Fanning about the story, but further states "This issue (child rape) is so silenced in our society. There are a lot of women who are alone with this story."
I also applaud Sundance Director Geoffrey Gilmore for standing behind the film and not bowing to the protests.
People like Mr. Baehr piss me off as they believe their moral compass is so absolutely correct that anyone who disagrees with them is 100% wrong. Their kneejerk reactions lead to censorship and other acts of ignorace such as book burnings and in our not-too-distant past, lynchings.
Anyone who knows me knows I am a "gamer" and have played role playing games such as Dungeons and Dragons for a long while. I was raised in a Christian household, and when my extended family discovered what I was doing, I was berated for playing a "Satanic" game. Interestingly, when I asked them to simply watch one session, ask questions and make an INFORMED opinion, they almost ran in fear – as if being in the same room was going to instantly corrupt their eternal souls. They had never even seen the game played and couldn't tell me anything about it other than the name.
These people, those with the morality stick shoved firmly up their ass, would have gladly participated in the Salem witch trials. If you don't believe this, then consider the ever increasing number of fines and penalties levied against radio and television networks. This is the financial equivalent of lighting a torch.
It must be said yet again that if you do not like what you are looking at, look the hell away and leave everyone else alone!
5 Comments:
Seriously man, D&D, IT.... they're all in the dark arts.
Fundies suck.
Funny...they don't make a peep when a film depicts (fictional) murder, mayhem, torture, disembowelment, or worse offered by the dozens of slasher films every year.
I guess they're OK with that.
The issue is that this "film" (I call it that because it is physically on film) deals with what is perhaps the most disgusting of all crimes: sexual abuse of a child.
POINT 1: Roger, that you actually defend the film based on belief that a 12 year old, ANY 12 year old, knows what's right and wrong...is simply wrong. The reason for the laws we have protecting children is that children DO NOT know what's in their best interest. Hell, teenagers are famous for making bad decisions while believing themselves to be 100& correct while making them. They do not have the life experience to know when something is stupid, dangerous or emotionally-damaging. Dakota Fanning may still be a child in EVERY sense of the word. I don't care how smart she is; she doesn't know what she's doing.
---------
POINT 2: The rape scene in "A Clockwork Orange" earned that film an X rating. It wasn't an actual rape. It was actors ACTING their way through a rape. And yet, the X rating makes it Illegal for a theater to allow Dakota Fanning to see that movie. If YOU showed that film to Dakota Fanning, or to any other 12 year old, you would be arrested, jailed and permanently flagged as a "sexual predator." And you'd deserve all of it.
If it's illegal for Dakota to watch ADULT actors perform a rape scene, it's wrong for her to act in a rape scene.
------------
POINT 3: Protecting children is hard in this world. Parents struggle to shield their kids from as much "adult" horror as possible for as long as possible. The laws do what they do to limit what kids can be exposed to.
When any situation arises where there is the slightest doubt, we have to go with protecting the kids, whether they like it or not.
---------
POINT 4: As an actor, you know that you need to know what a scene is about in order to play it. What do you think the conversation was between the director and Dakota before the rape scene was filmed? That conversation, in and of itself and regardless of its context, could be seen as a criminal act. Not many parents would have a problem with that. Many would beg for a chance to have five minutes alone with the adult who was charged with speaking so explicitly to a 12 year old.
----------
POINT 5: Just because somebody wants to film something doesn't mean they have a RIGHT to do it. Nor does it make them RIGHT to want to do it. Nor is it censorship to oppose a bad idea. Films are not all "art." Many are purely for entertainment purposes. Many are pure exploitation. Hence the ratings system...which is supported by the industry. The director of this movie knew the rules before she made the movie, but she made it anyway. Reviews I've read say that showing the rape scene was not necessary to the story, but was included for the shock value and attention it would bring to the film. (Really, to the director.) That's not a good reason and definitely not a noble reason. Films are editted all the time to remove scenes that would otherwise give them an uacceptably adult rating. The director chose not to do that with this movie. Why? Editing is not censorship; it's business. Films are made and never released. Films are made and can't find a distributor. This is not censorship, either.
-------
POINT 6: If the director did what she did because she thought it had more impact emotionally or because the subject was an important one, then she should have made a documentary with REAL abuse victims who are now adults but talk about what happened to them in childhood. Heck, let Dakota Fanning narate the damned thing if it's so important to have her involved. As it is, though, the movie is a work of fiction...i.e., invented, not real, made up out of thin air. As such, it gets what it deserves, for better or worse.
-------
-------
As to the slasher films jedesign mentions, those aren't for children and their ratings reflect this. Most of 'em aren't for adults either, considering their poor quality. They, more than any films short of hardcore porn, demonstrate that many movies are made to cater to the perverse side of many people, or to the purely perverted. A small percentage of Americans ever see them or ever care to.
RE: POINT 1. Children are depicted in film doing all sorts of horrible things -- stealing, murder, etc. -- or having horrible things happen to them, and this is no different. The fact, though, that this film depicts a sexual act seems to rile many viewers, and with just cause. A reasonable person should think that a child being murdered or a child committing murder is just as heinous, but most people don't.
RE: POINT 2. "A Clockwork Orange" was released in 1971, over 35 years ago. If that film was released today, it would be rated R. And it is not illegal for Dakota Fannning to watch actors in a rape scene if she has her parents' permission.
RE: POINT 3. Any reasonable and responsible parent would not allow their child to view this movie, or any R-rated film.
RE: POINT 4. If I had a 12-year-old child, I would make damn sure they understood the concepts of abduction, abuse and rape. By that age, if they don't understand it, then they have no means by which to recognize it and avoid it or report it. Too many parents keep their kids ignorant and in the dark, and help create helpless victims.
RE: POINT 5. Unless the Bush administration has gotten its ultimate wish, our Constitution still guarantees the right of freedom of speech and expression. And there is a difference between depicting a fictional rape in a movie and filming a real one. Just as there is a difference between movies like "Pulp Fiction" and a snuff film. And whether or not thge inclusion of the the scene was necessary is a matter of artistic perspective. If films were banned for a subjective percetion of artistic merit, very few films would be released at all.
RE: POINT 6. For hundreds of years, social and political statements have been made in fictional works of art, from paintings to books to plays and yes, even films. This is nothing new. Sometimes to get people's attention the message needs to arrive in an enticing package. This is ever more neccessary today, with Americans' self-serving attitudes and ever-shrinking attention spans.
And as for my slasher-film analogy? I have a feeling "Hound Dog" was not intended for children either.
I love a good debate, and both sides have presented their arguments admirably, with great conviction and eloquence. Skylemming has been and will continue to be a very trusted and reliable voice in my world, but on this point I do stand by my original position. Passing a blind judgment on anything based on hearsay alone is nothing short of idiotic. We live in a world where snap judgments are responsible for things such as racial profiling and sexual discrimination. You can argue "well I know I won't like it," but just as with taking that first bite of that strange looking dish your new girlfriend painstakingly made for you, you can't really know until you try it. If it's not your cup of tea that's fine, eat something else. But it is wrong to try to have her stove taken away because you THINK you won't like the food.
One last thing, I have 13 year old niece, and you can bet damn well I would expect her to understand the seriousness and real life threat of an issue like this, but at the same time, I wouldn't choose a film as the forum for initiating the conversation. It is rated "R" for a reason - she isn't the film's target audience.
Post a Comment
<< Home