I couldn't believe this story in the Daily News (found via Gawker):Cute-as-a-button child star Dakota Fanning, who turned 12 in February, is venturing into sexually disturbing territory in a movie being filmed in North Carolina.
The screenplay for "Hounddog" - a dark story of abuse, violence and Elvis Presley adulation in the rural South, written and directed by Deborah Kampmeier - calls for Fanning's character to be raped in one explicit scene and to appear naked or clad only in "underpants" in several other horrifying moments.
more ...
It'll be interesting to see how this resolves. If this film gets to theaters, let alone wins an oscar, that will be one helluva precedent. Apocalypse Nigh. Lock your doors. Hide your children.
Lloyd Grove's Lowdown [NY Daily News]
Gossip Roundup [Gawker]
yum. did I just say that?
ReplyDeleteI would definitely not see the movie because of that scene.
ReplyDeleteJodi Foster was only 12 when she played a whore in Taxi Driver and she turned out ok.
ReplyDeleteOh wait.. I just remembered her reciting Eminem lyrics at that graduation she spoke at. This must be stopped!
The Foster/Shields comparison doesn't work for me. A rape scene is a significant step beyond playing dress up. And I don't think those actresses were this young (12).
ReplyDeleteBut really I just can't believe an american audience would be ready for that.
you should have done a Crack Crackdown version.
ReplyDeleteif I did, I might have named it, Ain't No Fun If The Homies Can't Have None Edition.
ReplyDeleteThis reminds me of a big reaction to a movie from 6 or 7 years ago...
ReplyDeleteIndie flick made in France was translated in the states as "Rape Me," but apparently the French translation was "F*** Me."
Bottom line: Lots of sex, lots of violence - graphic rape scenes, gore, the works. Banned in most countries, LOTS of discussion about how depraved the entire film was...interesting difference between most of the countries around the world that banned the film and the states:
it was banned in the states for the extreme sexuality - the rest of the world banned it for the gratuitous violence...
so stands to reason: if something can be interpreted as merely VIOLENT, it'll probably fly in the US (because we're desensitized to MOST things at this point and it takes a VERY extreme film to even generate much conversation), but if it's overtly sexual, apparently makes most american movie-goers (no, strike that, makes the MPAA and the film studios) more uncomfortable...
so would be interesting to see which way this movie swings if it makes it to theatres...
Hmm... get to race-y? I can't relate.
ReplyDeleteI'll be the cracker if you'll be the black olive on top...
But not in a sexual way. Just in an appetizer kind of way. Cuz I'm married! (Which means I'm more familiar with food at this point, anyway.)
Jodie Foster WAS 12 when she did Taxi Driver. Plus, you have to take into account the time Taxi Driver was filmed rather than going by today's standards where nothing shocks us anymore. A 12 year old prostitute was a huge deal back then.
ReplyDeleteforget the rape, just dakota fanning naked is frightening. that's raping me.
ReplyDeleteGet out from under your rocks people!!!
ReplyDeleteAnyone ever see Bastard out of Carolina, staring Jena Malone (12yrs old at the time) and Jennifer Jason Leigh!!!
Malone's character suffered repeated sexual abuse from her mother's many husbands/lovers/boyrfriends. She was also raped in a scene, so this type of movie isn't new.
It probably has more star power attached to it, with Dakota Fanning in it.
I didn't know the Bastard movie. I'm still torn. If it's part of life you're supposed to be able to portray it. But, I guess I just think it's a bad move for Dakota. An anonymous girl should do it. Either she'll ruin the movie, or the movie will ruin her.
ReplyDeleteChoatey!
ReplyDelete"bastard" is a good call. It also reminded me of the Tim Roth directed movie The War Zone, which took a look at incestual rape and sexual abuse. So there's def. precedent.
I guess it is Dakota's current status/stature that maybe slants the light a little.
I just wonder why Hollywood is telling us stories about raping and abusing 12-year-olds at all. They seem to have a sick obsession with the torture and abuse of women in general (see: Kiss the Girls, 8MM, etc.)
ReplyDeleteEven if it's been done before, I find the whole thing really disturbing. Not only because of the really great points jaime made but also because of the increasingly acceptable tendency to sexualize young girls and put them in these crazy situations.
ReplyDeleteHer mom creeps me out (surely dad can't be happy about this). Who would want their 12 year old to simulate being raped and appear naked or in her underwear for the sake of Oscar?
I hate that kid Dakota Fanning. And, I probably hate the idea of this movie even more.
ReplyDeleteOk, I'm ready for some crucifiction here. Let's analyze this for a moment and make some generalizations. Say I put out a gansta rap album(I wouldn't, as TAN has taught me white chicks shouldn't rap) but there would be an element of defense in the fact that what is spoken of isn't just for complete shock and awe value, but a certain amount of credibility attained in that it mirrors true life. With that said, why is it ok to show a twelve year old boy shot in the head on a weekly TV drama, yet the issue of raping a young girl is too taboo to touch? Sorry, but this happens. Welcome to reality. Hotel Rwanda left me sick from the idea that this sort of thing truly is taking place in our world, but now Dakota Fanning and her posse are the antichrist for deeming such a role to have relevance? Some of us have been raped at a young age and don't view Hollywood as the bad guy for portraying it. Now, if it was a Chappelle skit, maybe it would be more debatable. If we are so concerned about the portrayal of young girls in the arts, then watch TRL for an afternoon and tell me that the objectification of young women is more appropriate if she is fourteen and crooning some pop crap in a nightie in her room than if Dakota does a role that hits on a very hard, very real topic. The longer we keep roles like this on the cutting room floor and hidden from the social radar, the longer our pervs can keep their daughters/family/friends sheltered from an epidemic that is alot more previlant than the movies that Hollywood makes. Watch "Kids" or "Kids II" (better known as "Thirteen") and tell me how these movies are culture exposing, credible, and realistic looks into life in America as we know it, but this movie is the trigger for America to get some pitchforks and torches and cry justice . TAN, you hate Dakota Fanning. If it were some young unknown who wasn't in the position for box office pull, would that young actress be some Oscar seeking ass too? No biggie. But c'mon? Maybe those of us who have lived it want the public to see it and be disturbed by it and raise questions. Find whatever parallels there you wish. And one last thing....does anyone on this site ever disagree with TAN or do we all just come here to snap in the back ground and say "yeah man" everytime he opts to type a blog? (Wait, I could actually put a TAN link right there) That said, I do love your entries, but not so much that I won't cry foul sometimes.
ReplyDeleteTo anonymous,
ReplyDeleteI don't really know about whether these types of movies serve that much of a good purpose. Do we really need to experience a full-on nude and rape scene to know that child molesting is bad? If someone's so messed up that they didn't know before the Dakota Fanning scene, chances are they won't be convinced after.
Basically, a movie like that is going to be preaching to the choir for the most part, since most of the people who hate child abuse after seeing it probably hated it before. Also, don't you think such a movie is actually going to ATTRACT a lot of pedophiles as wank-material, kind of defeating any constructive point the movie may have had?
T--You bring up a good point, predictable, but good. Firstly, it's not the fact that people know it exist or not. People are well aware of many of the world's evils existing, however their is such a taboo attached to this that my main concern is that sometimes when people are so disturbed by it, it is thus placed on the back shelf. Not that they don't know it's out there, but it is tucked away. Kept out of sight out of mind in the public eye. I truly believe that most other controversial topics are addressed in the arts showing various horrors, but I guess I happen to side more on the "art mirroring life" side. I think that reality is disturbing, thus so are some of the most poignant films. As far as attracting the perv patrol, gonna go with a no. If that is why Dakota is truly on the chopping block, because of what she is going to attract, sadly there is an entire industry devoted to such things be it internet, sex trade, etc. For every "good guy" who has ever been on the computer and said, "she looks 15!" to the raunchiest sex offenders, this problem is separate I feel than what this movie is trying to do.
ReplyDeleteT--and I guess I just realized why I am arguing for it. Sorry, took a second to click, but don't you feel there is a solace offered to the women out there who do survive situations such as this when they see such a film? Maybe that is why I am a proponent for what is some dark water here. For a problem that affects up to 1 in 4 women, I guess that having movies address it in such a real way offers a little validation and that feeling of "it's not just me". Plus, if the overall goal of this movie is her survival, isn't that helping a large group of women who will identify?
ReplyDelete