In light of the controversy surrounding the Dakota Fanning "rape-and-plenty-of-other-bad-stuff" movie, Hounddog, which was filmed in North Carolina, Republican State Senator of that state, Phil Berger of Rockingham County, wants "to review scripts before issuing tax credits for films made in North Carolina.... [He] thinks the public has a right to see scripts before the state gives tax credits to films. There are already certain controls on film tax credits.
Sen. Berger is currently drafting the initiative."
People on both sides of the political and moral aisle are crying foul over this proposal, mostly under the banners of "it's a constitutional violation" or "too much government involvement in art," etc.
I, for one, think those arguments are pitifully pathetic (or vice versa). The Constitution of the United States protects our rights, not the abuse of those same rights. Plus, art does not possess immunity to penalties for unlawfulness and indecency. When did we begin to accept that absurd notion?
Also, the government does not have the right to get involved with "art" when the artists are using tax credits--the government's money--MY MONEY--to create this trash? You have got to be pulling my leg.
However, having said all that, I do think there are a few reasons why this is not a good, sufficient, or efficient idea:
a.) It would hurt North Carolina’s film industry and economy without solving the problem. If one lone state steps up with a law like this, the filmmakers move on to South Carolina, Virginia or one of the other forty-seven states, along with other countries, rather than sitting and waiting to see if their script is acceptable and whether or not they'll get a tax credit. When you consider the fact that some moviemakers know that their material is filthy, you realize that they wouldn’t even come near North Carolina. So, essentially, North Carolina “cleanses” itself, loses money from the entertainment industry, and doesn’t protect any more children, really, or the society in general.
b.) It potentially would leave art in the hands of the balance, or lack thereof, of power, rather than the hands of the people and the law. Unless strict definitions and requirements were in place, it would leave the decisions and judgments in the hands of serving politicians and/or judges. If one set of politicians can deny a tax credit to a movie like Hounddog, couldn't another set of politicians, on the opposite end of the spectrum, give EXTRA tax credit? Would conservatives try to punish movies with language or something? Would liberals encourage everything? This may be overreaching, but we’ve given the government enough power already, haven't we? Why more? Without firmly entrenched definitions of allowable and completely unacceptable material, I don't see this as a good idea.
c.) It would slow down the filmmaking process and add to the already overloaded bureaucracy. Protecting children is much more important than making movies faster, but, as you will see below, I think there are better solutions. Plus, the more bureaucracy, the less efficient it seems.
So, here's my five-point, multi-faceted solution to the problem at hand, with point number five obviously the most important:
1.) Stricter definition and stronger enforcement of child abuse laws.
It must be taken care to insure that children are not inconvenient “expenses” (victims) for the sake and in the pursuit of profit margins and agenda advancement in the entertainment industry.
2.) Stricter definition and stronger enforcement of child porn laws.
I think it is an egregious thing that a 12-year-old girl has to take off her panties for it to be considered child porn. Society should hold itself to a higher standard, especially in this day and age of pedophilia when we need to be protecting children, especially when we are discussing big-screen productions that could be widely distributed. Panties are porn. Body suits are porn.
3.) Internal controls within the entertainment industry.
“Artsy” people don’t want the government to get involved at all in these types of situations. Even some of those against this movie don’t want more government involvement. I tend to agree: government involvement usually turns sour in one way or another once power is granted, and it leaves different things, such as art, essentially at the mercy of who is currently in power. Therefore, you can even see child porn and abuse ENCOURAGED rather than prosecuted, if enough of a certain type of people got into power. Worst-case scenario? Certainly. But, even a lesser occurrence wouldn't be a good thing, obviously.
Many believe that the entertainment industry can handle this with internal controls and union regulations, etc. However, if Hollywood-ians and the like want to keep their house clean on their own without the government’s help, then they need to get serious and plug in the vacuum cleaner.
4.) Money message.
Money talks, and you, me, and everyone else shout over a loudspeaker to the entertainment industry. What are we saying? If agenda is the heart of the snake that is entertainment, then money is the head. Cut off the head, and the snake will die…
5.) Regeneration of our culture.
…But that is not enough. If you cut off the hands that do the evil, but the heart is still evil, the soul winds up in hell. That, suffice it to say, is not a desirable outcome. We need to change hearts and minds for Christ. We must defeat the erroneous ideas that maturing is synonymous with immorality; that the ever-earlier loss of innocence is acceptable; and that life is simply narcissistic and nihilistic.
We must do this by praying and acting on our prayers, for God helps those who have a live faith. (“Faith without works [actions] is dead.”)
Although this is my last planned update, I will still post if anything important pops up. The prayers and articles need to continue, in order that our efforts don't result in a "flash in the pan." We must burn to ash this detestable thing, not just burn the outer skin. We must realize, that ultimately, this is a small piece of the puzzle in which souls and societies are at stake, and that is not something we simply can fight for for a week or two. It's a lifetime's effort, and although this particular effort won't last that long, it is a piece that needs to be placed in a spot of victory, not defeat.
There are already other controversies which I could address, but I won't list here, for fear that I won't be able to speak to the issue more fully.
I plan on posting a recognition article thanking all those who joined me in blogging about this issue. Until then, though, I thank everyone for their prayers and efforts.
~Kingdom Advancer
Showing posts with label Dakota Fanning. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Dakota Fanning. Show all posts
Sunday, February 04, 2007
Saturday, January 27, 2007
Updates (Round 6) on "Wrong in So Many Ways"
I have a lot to tell you about, so let's not waste any time.
First of all, Hounddog is being trashed by early reviewers of the film. While most reviews that I've read have actually DEFENDED and MINIMIZED the rape scene as "done tastefully," they have torn to shreds the movie itself, on purely artistic and entertainment levels, criticizing the plot, the dialogue, the cliche characters, and the force-fed emotions.
This is extremely good news, and quite frankly, unexpected. You would naturally assume, when you realize that our battle is not against flesh and blood, that liberal critics, who even shun the seriousness of the rape scene (and ignore other parts in the movie), would celebrate this film. But, of what I've seen so far, that is not the case. I don't agree with everything they say, but they seem to be putting down the film--with no vendetta against the subject matter! (Click here for a review of the movie by Variety; Click here for a review on Fox News) God works in mysterious ways. Let's hope and pray this trend continues. Why? Three reasons:
1.) First of all, it looks like this film isn't going to collect very many Benjamins, Washingtons, or Lincolns (pennies), for that matter. I imagine that a relatively small amount of people were going to see this film anyway, and bad reviews are only going to shrink the population of Hounddog moviegoers. As Variety's review says:
Aside from Fanning and the controversy, the film has nothing going for it commercially; sales are likely due to the cast, but paying customers will be scarce.
The director of this film is trying to make herself out to be some type of hero, who's "giving a voice" to silent, suffering women, and "raising awareness" to this important issue. If this indeed were the case (which later I will point out it is not), then her next film would be about child rape, and the next, and the next, and the next, and the next would ALL be about child rape. How likely do you think that is? Or, how likely do you think that is if this movie doesn't bring her any cash? Not likely at all.
2.) Secondly, I think you can cancel Dakota's mother's "Oscar party." Unless Hollywood decides to go totally against the grain, this movie isn't going to win anything. Obviously, this is NOT specifically because of the subject matter--Hollywood has shown us time and time again that you can't underestimate what they'll give an award to. However, compile that with bad reviews of the movie, and you should have a perfectly Oscar-less production. (Yay!)
3.) Thirdly, the movie has yet to be picked up for distribution, and it's looking less likely that it ever will be. That would be some kind of message sent from distribution companies. Fox News posted an article titled No Buyers for Dakota Fanning Rape Movie by Roger Friedman. Here's some snippets from the article:
Hounddog, the simply awful movie in which 12-year-old Dakota Fanning’s character is raped, has no buyers.
"No one wants it after the terrible reviews," one distributor told me...
Indeed, the people associated with The Weinstein Company, IFC Films and First Look were among those who instantly agreed that they had no interest in Hounddog.
At this rate, this exercise in bad taste may wind up being a DVD collector’s item.
With the above-mentioned distributors out, it’s unlikely now that any major buyer will take Hounddog. And that’s just as well, considering that its release is sure to spark more outrage, protests and calls for investigations.
An e-mail I received from Paul Petersen, former child actor, current child advocate, and creator of A Minor Consideration, a child advocacy organization, said this:
No Distributors, at least at Sundance, offered to put this film into general release.
From Fox News:
...12-year-old Cody Hanford, who plays Fanning’s boyfriend in the provocative and poorly written outing, may actually become more of the focus than even the star.
In the film, his character lures Fanning’s into a barn and then watches as she’s raped. Hanford and Fanning also have numerous kissing scenes, some in which they’re half-dressed.
From the Orlando Sentinel's Kathleen Parker:
The same taboo-busting impulse drives Hounddog, wherein we witness a real 12-year-old portray a girl waking up as her naked father climbs into bed with her; "dancing" in her underwear while lying in bed; and getting raped by a teenage boy.
We are, in other words, voyeurs to a young girl acting out a sexual predator's fantasies.
Also, there's reportedly a lot of "gyrating" and seductive dancing by Dakota, and more than one person has noted that there's a "lot of panties." And let's not forget about the mutual masturbation scene, that seems to have disappeared.
This movie just keeps getting better the more you know about it, doesn't it?
Also, don't allow the makers of this movie to trick you into thinking that it's "all about awareness" and a "message movie," or whatever. It's not. Roger Friedman, in his Fox News articles, said this:
Since I am one of the few who’ve actually seen it, let me explain something important. There is no point that I can find to the child’s rape.
Once it happens, it’s never discussed. The culprit is never accused or apprehended. The child never tells her story to anyone. There’s no great moment of revelation that could possibly help someone who’s watching the film. It’s simply there for shock value.
The fact that Kampmeier and the producers have somehow conned rape-assistance groups into using the movie as a public-service announcement is bizarre to me. But I guess it’s no more bizarre than using Dakota Fanning as the public defender of the indefensible.
.....................................
That her moves are suggestive is another matter altogether. The director seems to be implying that Lewellen is almost asking for her rape by a 20-year-old boy who delivers the family’s milk.
It’s either that or Lewellen should be allowed to act seductively without fear of being attacked. Either way, the arguments do not stand up.
Todd McCarthy, who wrote the Variety article I mentioned, wrote this:
From here [after the rape scene] , one wants to stick close to Lewellen to study her reactions and decisions. Instead, the Strange Lady returns to distracting effect, Daddy starts running naked through town, Granny totes her shotgun around, and a plane's worth of snakes begins materializing everywhere, a matter tended to by a wise black man (Afemo Omilami), a horse trainer who endeavors to restore a measure of physical and psychic health to both Strange Lady and Lewellen.
...there is much sound and fury here signifying very little, and loads of vile behavior, beginning with the rape but scarcely confined to it, to scant point.
In summarization, then, one of the only arguments defenders of the film have been able to come up with falls flat on its face. Paul Petersen, in the e-mail I received, dismantles another of the few arguments for the film: that a couple actresses have played similar roles in the past and "turned out fine." Petersen says:
They would prefer that we not remember that Jodi Foster was stalked by no less than John Hinckley (he eventually shot President Reagan) thanks to “Taxi Driver’s” imagery. Also affected was the other young performer always cited, Brooke Shields, who had to endure a terrifying stalker for fifteen years named Mark Ronald Bailey who was finally jailed in 2000. “Pretty Baby” and “Taxi Driver” were mainstream, big studio films.
Thirdly, and finally, Dakota Fanning is "mad" and she's letting people know about it. In other words, the film's makers, and Dakota's parents, are putting her out there to defend the movie and the choice to let Dakota act in it, because they can't. Roger Friedman in one of the previously mentioned Fox News articles articulated this well:
Meanwhile, the producers of Hounddog trotted out Fanning yesterday to defend the film in places like USA Today and at another press conference.
It’s come to that, apparently. The people who should be answering questions, however, are Fanning’s parents, and the parents of the other children in the film.
Now, I will address individually some of the things Dakota said:
When it gets to the point of attacking my mother, my agent ... my teacher, who were all on the set that day, that started to make me mad...
I can let other things go, but when people start to talk about my mother, like, that's really bad in my opinion ... that's an attack, and that's not fair.
It's both cute and sad to see Dakota defending her mother. Cute, because all children should do, and should be expected to do, the same thing. Sad, because, well, honestly, how much does Dakota's mother deserve to be defended? It's sad, because Dakota can't see that many of these people criticizing her mom are being more responsible, with better priorities, and more protective than her mom is being.
Now, I do not condone any movements calling for her mother to be arrested. I think that is overreaching and counter-productive. Overreaching, because it won't happen, and counter-productive, because Dakota needs a godly mother, not no mother at all. But, the facts speak for themselves: Dakota's mother wants an Oscar and wants Dakota to "be challenged" and "grow up" as an actress; people like myself care for Dakota and other children. I'm not saying that Dakota's mother doesn't care, just that her priorities may be effecting her judgment.
Fanning also said she would recommend seeing Hounddog to her friends, with their parents' approval, because of the issues supposedly presented in this film that her friends might face, or might have already faced. As well, she said she would want to go see the film, even if she wasn't in it, and that her mother would take her.
First of all, about recommending it to her friends. The "with their parents" approval is a gigantic disclaimer, but look: Dakota would have wanted to see it, even if she wasn't in it; her mother would have let her; and Dakota would recommend it to her friends.
But what about your little sister, Dakota? No? Who gets to make that judgment call? You?
Secondly, it's again cute and sad. Because, rightfully so, Dakota is making her mom the moral authority. Unfortunately, is she trustworthy with that power?
You know, I'm an actress. It's what I want to do, it's what I've been so lucky to have done for almost seven years now. And I am getting older.
Here's something Dakota doesn't understand. Your occupation doesn't give you license to do something wrong. That's like a military sharpshooter killing innocent civilians, saying, "I'm a sharpshooter. That's what I do." Also, your occupation doesn't insulate you from any negative emotional effect. Even Coast Guard rescue swimmers can have fearful flashbacks of missions gone awry. They are not insulated from the tragedy of occasional failure.
Fanning also said that she would want to see this movie, even if she wasn't it, because it's educational.
I'm going to be a freshman in high school in September, and I think it would be irresponsible of my parents not to let me know of things that happen and to try not to get yourself in uncomfortable situations. It's educational.
Wow! A freshman in high-school, Dakota? Slap a stamp on me and call me an envelope. Why didn't you say so? You're practically a member of AARP!
In all seriousness, though the director of the film called Dakota an "old soul" and someone else stated that she is "12 going on 45," she's twelve. Period. Secondly, since when do movies become our source for education? Kids shouldn't learn about the birds and the bees at the theater, and they shouldn't learn about the corruption of the "birds and the bees," either--as in, rape, child molestation, etc. It should be the parents doing the teaching on that topic, and maybe a little can be gotten from books.
Plus the fact, that again, this movie isn't that educational.
Phew...I know that was long. I hope you were able to read it all. I'm going to leave with you with another call to keep praying and keep spreading the word about this issue. In the words of Paul Petersen:
Now we have to worry about images of Dakota showing up on the Internet. We all need to pray for her safety.
Pray for her safety, and pray for all aspects of this situation. I encourage you to go to A Minor Consideration and thank Paul Petersen personally for the work he and his organization is doing. Also, this article aforementioned by Kathleen Parker is very good, and witty. I encourage you to read it in its entirety.
~Kingdom Advancer
First of all, Hounddog is being trashed by early reviewers of the film. While most reviews that I've read have actually DEFENDED and MINIMIZED the rape scene as "done tastefully," they have torn to shreds the movie itself, on purely artistic and entertainment levels, criticizing the plot, the dialogue, the cliche characters, and the force-fed emotions.
This is extremely good news, and quite frankly, unexpected. You would naturally assume, when you realize that our battle is not against flesh and blood, that liberal critics, who even shun the seriousness of the rape scene (and ignore other parts in the movie), would celebrate this film. But, of what I've seen so far, that is not the case. I don't agree with everything they say, but they seem to be putting down the film--with no vendetta against the subject matter! (Click here for a review of the movie by Variety; Click here for a review on Fox News) God works in mysterious ways. Let's hope and pray this trend continues. Why? Three reasons:
1.) First of all, it looks like this film isn't going to collect very many Benjamins, Washingtons, or Lincolns (pennies), for that matter. I imagine that a relatively small amount of people were going to see this film anyway, and bad reviews are only going to shrink the population of Hounddog moviegoers. As Variety's review says:
Aside from Fanning and the controversy, the film has nothing going for it commercially; sales are likely due to the cast, but paying customers will be scarce.
The director of this film is trying to make herself out to be some type of hero, who's "giving a voice" to silent, suffering women, and "raising awareness" to this important issue. If this indeed were the case (which later I will point out it is not), then her next film would be about child rape, and the next, and the next, and the next, and the next would ALL be about child rape. How likely do you think that is? Or, how likely do you think that is if this movie doesn't bring her any cash? Not likely at all.
2.) Secondly, I think you can cancel Dakota's mother's "Oscar party." Unless Hollywood decides to go totally against the grain, this movie isn't going to win anything. Obviously, this is NOT specifically because of the subject matter--Hollywood has shown us time and time again that you can't underestimate what they'll give an award to. However, compile that with bad reviews of the movie, and you should have a perfectly Oscar-less production. (Yay!)
3.) Thirdly, the movie has yet to be picked up for distribution, and it's looking less likely that it ever will be. That would be some kind of message sent from distribution companies. Fox News posted an article titled No Buyers for Dakota Fanning Rape Movie by Roger Friedman. Here's some snippets from the article:
Hounddog, the simply awful movie in which 12-year-old Dakota Fanning’s character is raped, has no buyers.
"No one wants it after the terrible reviews," one distributor told me...
Indeed, the people associated with The Weinstein Company, IFC Films and First Look were among those who instantly agreed that they had no interest in Hounddog.
At this rate, this exercise in bad taste may wind up being a DVD collector’s item.
With the above-mentioned distributors out, it’s unlikely now that any major buyer will take Hounddog. And that’s just as well, considering that its release is sure to spark more outrage, protests and calls for investigations.
An e-mail I received from Paul Petersen, former child actor, current child advocate, and creator of A Minor Consideration, a child advocacy organization, said this:
No Distributors, at least at Sundance, offered to put this film into general release.
This is great news. Note that it intertwines itself with point number one. Although it seems that some distributors are backing out simply because the movie is terrible--not because of the inappropriateness of the subject matter--one has to think that the righteous indignation towards this movie is playing a role in their business decisions. There just is not enough incentive for these distributors to put themselves on the line by picking up Hounddog. And, hey, maybe distributors have a sense of decency, too!
A small distributor might pick up this film eventually, but it should be noted that smaller distributors might not be able to afford the risk of going out on such a limb. (Paul Petersen and others are trying to "ensure that even a DVD release is liable to result in criminal prosecution.") And, of course, small distributors are better than big ones.
This is my official thank you to every and any distributor who rejects this film.
The second thing I have to tell you about is that, as if the rape scene was not enough, there is more stuff in this film to get your blood-boiling:
From Variety:
Opening interludes are drenched in swampy sweat and sex, as barely prepubescent kids Lewellen (Fanning) and Buddy (Cody Hanford) scamper through the woods to find a secluded place where Buddy can show Lewellen his privates in exchange for a kiss. Lewellen shortly explains that one day she's going to kill her daddy and cut off his privates in the bargain.
Lewellen continually bumps and grinds in Elvis fashion, to the distinct disapproval of Granny, and schemes with Buddy to get tickets to an upcoming local Elvis concert; the two kids play grown-up, dressing up and pretending to drink and smoke, with her kissing him a lot; a little rich girl nicknamed Grasshopper (Isabelle Fuhrman) arrives for the summer at the mansion nearby, giving Lewellen a rival for Buddy's attention...
From Fox News:
...12-year-old Cody Hanford, who plays Fanning’s boyfriend in the provocative and poorly written outing, may actually become more of the focus than even the star.
In the film, his character lures Fanning’s into a barn and then watches as she’s raped. Hanford and Fanning also have numerous kissing scenes, some in which they’re half-dressed.
From the Orlando Sentinel's Kathleen Parker:
The same taboo-busting impulse drives Hounddog, wherein we witness a real 12-year-old portray a girl waking up as her naked father climbs into bed with her; "dancing" in her underwear while lying in bed; and getting raped by a teenage boy.
We are, in other words, voyeurs to a young girl acting out a sexual predator's fantasies.
Also, there's reportedly a lot of "gyrating" and seductive dancing by Dakota, and more than one person has noted that there's a "lot of panties." And let's not forget about the mutual masturbation scene, that seems to have disappeared.
This movie just keeps getting better the more you know about it, doesn't it?
Also, don't allow the makers of this movie to trick you into thinking that it's "all about awareness" and a "message movie," or whatever. It's not. Roger Friedman, in his Fox News articles, said this:
Since I am one of the few who’ve actually seen it, let me explain something important. There is no point that I can find to the child’s rape.
Once it happens, it’s never discussed. The culprit is never accused or apprehended. The child never tells her story to anyone. There’s no great moment of revelation that could possibly help someone who’s watching the film. It’s simply there for shock value.
The fact that Kampmeier and the producers have somehow conned rape-assistance groups into using the movie as a public-service announcement is bizarre to me. But I guess it’s no more bizarre than using Dakota Fanning as the public defender of the indefensible.
.....................................
That her moves are suggestive is another matter altogether. The director seems to be implying that Lewellen is almost asking for her rape by a 20-year-old boy who delivers the family’s milk.
It’s either that or Lewellen should be allowed to act seductively without fear of being attacked. Either way, the arguments do not stand up.
Todd McCarthy, who wrote the Variety article I mentioned, wrote this:
From here [after the rape scene] , one wants to stick close to Lewellen to study her reactions and decisions. Instead, the Strange Lady returns to distracting effect, Daddy starts running naked through town, Granny totes her shotgun around, and a plane's worth of snakes begins materializing everywhere, a matter tended to by a wise black man (Afemo Omilami), a horse trainer who endeavors to restore a measure of physical and psychic health to both Strange Lady and Lewellen.
...there is much sound and fury here signifying very little, and loads of vile behavior, beginning with the rape but scarcely confined to it, to scant point.
In summarization, then, one of the only arguments defenders of the film have been able to come up with falls flat on its face. Paul Petersen, in the e-mail I received, dismantles another of the few arguments for the film: that a couple actresses have played similar roles in the past and "turned out fine." Petersen says:
They would prefer that we not remember that Jodi Foster was stalked by no less than John Hinckley (he eventually shot President Reagan) thanks to “Taxi Driver’s” imagery. Also affected was the other young performer always cited, Brooke Shields, who had to endure a terrifying stalker for fifteen years named Mark Ronald Bailey who was finally jailed in 2000. “Pretty Baby” and “Taxi Driver” were mainstream, big studio films.
Thirdly, and finally, Dakota Fanning is "mad" and she's letting people know about it. In other words, the film's makers, and Dakota's parents, are putting her out there to defend the movie and the choice to let Dakota act in it, because they can't. Roger Friedman in one of the previously mentioned Fox News articles articulated this well:
Meanwhile, the producers of Hounddog trotted out Fanning yesterday to defend the film in places like USA Today and at another press conference.
It’s come to that, apparently. The people who should be answering questions, however, are Fanning’s parents, and the parents of the other children in the film.
Now, I will address individually some of the things Dakota said:
When it gets to the point of attacking my mother, my agent ... my teacher, who were all on the set that day, that started to make me mad...
I can let other things go, but when people start to talk about my mother, like, that's really bad in my opinion ... that's an attack, and that's not fair.
It's both cute and sad to see Dakota defending her mother. Cute, because all children should do, and should be expected to do, the same thing. Sad, because, well, honestly, how much does Dakota's mother deserve to be defended? It's sad, because Dakota can't see that many of these people criticizing her mom are being more responsible, with better priorities, and more protective than her mom is being.
Now, I do not condone any movements calling for her mother to be arrested. I think that is overreaching and counter-productive. Overreaching, because it won't happen, and counter-productive, because Dakota needs a godly mother, not no mother at all. But, the facts speak for themselves: Dakota's mother wants an Oscar and wants Dakota to "be challenged" and "grow up" as an actress; people like myself care for Dakota and other children. I'm not saying that Dakota's mother doesn't care, just that her priorities may be effecting her judgment.
Fanning also said she would recommend seeing Hounddog to her friends, with their parents' approval, because of the issues supposedly presented in this film that her friends might face, or might have already faced. As well, she said she would want to go see the film, even if she wasn't in it, and that her mother would take her.
First of all, about recommending it to her friends. The "with their parents" approval is a gigantic disclaimer, but look: Dakota would have wanted to see it, even if she wasn't in it; her mother would have let her; and Dakota would recommend it to her friends.
But what about your little sister, Dakota? No? Who gets to make that judgment call? You?
Secondly, it's again cute and sad. Because, rightfully so, Dakota is making her mom the moral authority. Unfortunately, is she trustworthy with that power?
You know, I'm an actress. It's what I want to do, it's what I've been so lucky to have done for almost seven years now. And I am getting older.
Here's something Dakota doesn't understand. Your occupation doesn't give you license to do something wrong. That's like a military sharpshooter killing innocent civilians, saying, "I'm a sharpshooter. That's what I do." Also, your occupation doesn't insulate you from any negative emotional effect. Even Coast Guard rescue swimmers can have fearful flashbacks of missions gone awry. They are not insulated from the tragedy of occasional failure.
Fanning also said that she would want to see this movie, even if she wasn't it, because it's educational.
I'm going to be a freshman in high school in September, and I think it would be irresponsible of my parents not to let me know of things that happen and to try not to get yourself in uncomfortable situations. It's educational.
Wow! A freshman in high-school, Dakota? Slap a stamp on me and call me an envelope. Why didn't you say so? You're practically a member of AARP!
In all seriousness, though the director of the film called Dakota an "old soul" and someone else stated that she is "12 going on 45," she's twelve. Period. Secondly, since when do movies become our source for education? Kids shouldn't learn about the birds and the bees at the theater, and they shouldn't learn about the corruption of the "birds and the bees," either--as in, rape, child molestation, etc. It should be the parents doing the teaching on that topic, and maybe a little can be gotten from books.
Plus the fact, that again, this movie isn't that educational.
Phew...I know that was long. I hope you were able to read it all. I'm going to leave with you with another call to keep praying and keep spreading the word about this issue. In the words of Paul Petersen:
Now we have to worry about images of Dakota showing up on the Internet. We all need to pray for her safety.
Pray for her safety, and pray for all aspects of this situation. I encourage you to go to A Minor Consideration and thank Paul Petersen personally for the work he and his organization is doing. Also, this article aforementioned by Kathleen Parker is very good, and witty. I encourage you to read it in its entirety.
~Kingdom Advancer
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
Updates (Round 5) on "Wrong in So Many Ways"
Well, Hounddog has now been screened at the Sundance Film Festival. That is a disappointment, but we should not be too discouraged.
Jeanine Pirro, the Republican D.A. in New York, who personally saw the screening, was on Fox News' Hannity & Colmes. She said that the outrage and analysis of the movie was completely overblown (by people like us). She said that there "was no touching," Dakota was only shown "from the shoulders up," and that the rape "was made in the editing room."
This is not a reason to be disappointed with ourselves, thinking that we overreacted. If, indeed, the movie is not as graphic as once thought, this is a victory, albeit a small one. Sean Hannity aptly pointed out that the movie went through 29 hours of re-editing. It is very likely that the film, if it in fact is "cleaner" than anticipated, was sanitized due to criticism. For instance, the Pirro on Fox News' made no mention of the mutual masturbation scene that was reportedly filmed involving Dakota. Hmm..... Where did that scene go, I wonder?
Not everyone shares the same opinion with Pirro, however. This is what Roger Friedman said on FoxNews.com:
Right away, I will tell you: 12-year-old Dakota Fanning plays a girl who endures a graphically suggested rape. If that’s not enough, she is also filmed sleeping dreamily while a half dozen real snakes slither all over her.
The rape scene, no matter how it’s spun, is disturbing and unsettling in fictional terms. In real life, though, it’s creepier to think that Dakota’s parents considered this a scene that was appropriate for their daughter.
...
That her moves are suggestive is another matter altogether. The director seems to be implying that Lewellen is almost asking for her rape by a 20-year-old boy who delivers the family’s milk.
It’s either that or Lewellen should be allowed to act seductively without fear of being attacked. Either way, the arguments do not stand up.
And here's a correction, courtesy of this article: the rape in the movie isn't incest. My apologies for the mistake. It appears that, while being abused by her father, she is raped by "a 20-year-old boy who delivers the family's milk."
Although sanitation--once again, if it did occur--is a partial victory, it is not complete. There are still many problematic questions with this film.
It still has the potential to turn on pedophiles. What about that?
Whas was actually filmed, as in, what got left on the cutting room floor? It's not just what made it in the film that counts, but what was made FOR the film.
If the rape was "made in the editing room," why would Dakota's mom and agent expect an Oscar? Actresses, not editors, generally win Oscars for "Best Actress." Unless, of course, the rest of the acting in the movie was just that good.
If the rape was "made in the editing room," why was the role so reportedly "challenging" for Dakota?
What about coaching? Was she coached through the scene? What exactly did Dakota have to act out?
I believe that I heard that the filming of the scene took place over several days. The scene was that long? Or, there were that many camera angles and that much unused footage? They made Dakota dwell on the scene--the topic--for days?
Either the director or Fanning's agent (I can't remember) made a comment that Dakota was dancing around the set after filming the scene because she knew she had done such a good job. What had she done? Or, was this comment referring to a different scene?
Then, there's the ultimate question, which Sean Hannity raised: Can a rape scene with a 12-year-old girl ever be done tastefully? I don't think so. But, for the sake of discussion, if so, who gets to arbitrarily draw the line between a "tasteful" rape scene and an "untasteful" one?
Also, the questions still remain: what lessons did Dakota learn? What fame is worth? What did she find out that she shouldn't know about yet?
This is still, in all likelihood, child abuse. Child porn? That's more of a question now, although we don't know what's on the uncut reel.
So, ultimately, most--if not all--of the points in my original article continue to ring true now that the movie is out, even if what people like Pirro say is true.
We need to continue to pray for Dakota. Also, prayer needs to be made for Dakota's parents, who should be discouraged and/or hindered from her full-speed-ahead pursuit of fame for their daughter. They, and their daughter, need to find God. As well, this needs to be a springboard to talk about what's acceptable and what's not in the arena of entertainment. The efforts and outrage MUST continue. Legal action, if it is taken, will take a while to unfold, but that's still a possibility. The makers of the film need to be pressured to release all footage, not just what they decided to let the public see. They will do this if they are truly innocent. The battle to block the screening is over...but we need to remember that the war--for souls, society, and justice--is ongoing.
Also, this should be a conversation-starter for the topic of child-rape and abuse. People like myself have been criticized as "trying to avoid the topic." Well, that's obviously off-base, but if you want to talk about it, let's talk about it, not shoot a movie about it.
In conclusion, let's hope and pray that the movie is not as bad as feared and that it won't have the suspected results, but let's also work and pray that there are still consequences for the making of this movie, and that it will be severely discouraged from happening again. Having not seen it myself, that's all I can say for now.
~Kingdom Advancer
Keep praying...keep talking...
Jeanine Pirro, the Republican D.A. in New York, who personally saw the screening, was on Fox News' Hannity & Colmes. She said that the outrage and analysis of the movie was completely overblown (by people like us). She said that there "was no touching," Dakota was only shown "from the shoulders up," and that the rape "was made in the editing room."
This is not a reason to be disappointed with ourselves, thinking that we overreacted. If, indeed, the movie is not as graphic as once thought, this is a victory, albeit a small one. Sean Hannity aptly pointed out that the movie went through 29 hours of re-editing. It is very likely that the film, if it in fact is "cleaner" than anticipated, was sanitized due to criticism. For instance, the Pirro on Fox News' made no mention of the mutual masturbation scene that was reportedly filmed involving Dakota. Hmm..... Where did that scene go, I wonder?
Not everyone shares the same opinion with Pirro, however. This is what Roger Friedman said on FoxNews.com:
Right away, I will tell you: 12-year-old Dakota Fanning plays a girl who endures a graphically suggested rape. If that’s not enough, she is also filmed sleeping dreamily while a half dozen real snakes slither all over her.
The rape scene, no matter how it’s spun, is disturbing and unsettling in fictional terms. In real life, though, it’s creepier to think that Dakota’s parents considered this a scene that was appropriate for their daughter.
...
That her moves are suggestive is another matter altogether. The director seems to be implying that Lewellen is almost asking for her rape by a 20-year-old boy who delivers the family’s milk.
It’s either that or Lewellen should be allowed to act seductively without fear of being attacked. Either way, the arguments do not stand up.
And here's a correction, courtesy of this article: the rape in the movie isn't incest. My apologies for the mistake. It appears that, while being abused by her father, she is raped by "a 20-year-old boy who delivers the family's milk."
Although sanitation--once again, if it did occur--is a partial victory, it is not complete. There are still many problematic questions with this film.
It still has the potential to turn on pedophiles. What about that?
Whas was actually filmed, as in, what got left on the cutting room floor? It's not just what made it in the film that counts, but what was made FOR the film.
If the rape was "made in the editing room," why would Dakota's mom and agent expect an Oscar? Actresses, not editors, generally win Oscars for "Best Actress." Unless, of course, the rest of the acting in the movie was just that good.
If the rape was "made in the editing room," why was the role so reportedly "challenging" for Dakota?
What about coaching? Was she coached through the scene? What exactly did Dakota have to act out?
I believe that I heard that the filming of the scene took place over several days. The scene was that long? Or, there were that many camera angles and that much unused footage? They made Dakota dwell on the scene--the topic--for days?
Either the director or Fanning's agent (I can't remember) made a comment that Dakota was dancing around the set after filming the scene because she knew she had done such a good job. What had she done? Or, was this comment referring to a different scene?
Then, there's the ultimate question, which Sean Hannity raised: Can a rape scene with a 12-year-old girl ever be done tastefully? I don't think so. But, for the sake of discussion, if so, who gets to arbitrarily draw the line between a "tasteful" rape scene and an "untasteful" one?
Also, the questions still remain: what lessons did Dakota learn? What fame is worth? What did she find out that she shouldn't know about yet?
This is still, in all likelihood, child abuse. Child porn? That's more of a question now, although we don't know what's on the uncut reel.
So, ultimately, most--if not all--of the points in my original article continue to ring true now that the movie is out, even if what people like Pirro say is true.
We need to continue to pray for Dakota. Also, prayer needs to be made for Dakota's parents, who should be discouraged and/or hindered from her full-speed-ahead pursuit of fame for their daughter. They, and their daughter, need to find God. As well, this needs to be a springboard to talk about what's acceptable and what's not in the arena of entertainment. The efforts and outrage MUST continue. Legal action, if it is taken, will take a while to unfold, but that's still a possibility. The makers of the film need to be pressured to release all footage, not just what they decided to let the public see. They will do this if they are truly innocent. The battle to block the screening is over...but we need to remember that the war--for souls, society, and justice--is ongoing.
Also, this should be a conversation-starter for the topic of child-rape and abuse. People like myself have been criticized as "trying to avoid the topic." Well, that's obviously off-base, but if you want to talk about it, let's talk about it, not shoot a movie about it.
In conclusion, let's hope and pray that the movie is not as bad as feared and that it won't have the suspected results, but let's also work and pray that there are still consequences for the making of this movie, and that it will be severely discouraged from happening again. Having not seen it myself, that's all I can say for now.
~Kingdom Advancer
Keep praying...keep talking...
Monday, January 22, 2007
Updates (Round 4) on "Wrong in So Many Ways"
Well, Hounddog has now been screened at the Sundance Film Festival. That's unfortunate and disappointing, but it is neither a reason to give up nor to be too discouraged.
I will try to post a complete update soon.
~Kingdom Advancer
The battle to block the screening is over...but we need to remember that the war--for souls, society, and justice--is ongoing. And the battle over Hounddog is not over yet either.
I will try to post a complete update soon.
~Kingdom Advancer
The battle to block the screening is over...but we need to remember that the war--for souls, society, and justice--is ongoing. And the battle over Hounddog is not over yet either.
Saturday, January 20, 2007
Updates (Round 3) on "Wrong in So Many Ways"
Although I thought I had covered all the bases, there are some jewels of points made by bloggers out there, and I wanted to share them with you.
First up: A person who listed his/herself simply as "Mad" commented with this profound point over at Revitalize Our Youth:
Don't they think about young girls who have been raped? How will this affect them? I don't think they understand what this will do to victims.
HCdl pointed this out in his article over at Faultline USA (Read article here) and in the same article at Wake Up America:
If Hollywood wants to make a movie demonizing child sexual abuse, that's fine. THIS AIN'T IT.
Third up: Also at Wake Up America, Debbie said this:
Remember, she has a younger sister, El Fanning I think is her name, just as talented. Is this what the little sister is going to see her bigger sister doing?
Fourth up: From right here at Kingdom Advancing, Austin commented with this:
Look at Lindsay Lohan. In The Parent Trap she was just a cute little kid. Now she's in rehab.
We should all note the astronomical difference between The Parent Trap and Hounddog.
Fifth up: Also right here at Kingdom Advancing, Solameanie made this astute inquiry:
...why is it that liberals always want to defend the indefensible?
Now, I'm not going to say that all liberals are defending this movie, but we know that some are.
Finally: I've been told twice that I shouldn't be "giving this movie free publicity," but rather should "just ignore it." These two comments are how I replied:
What you say is true, to a certain extent. But the fact is, the pedophiles are going to see this movie, whether I talk about it or not. Dakota Fanning was abused, and will have to live with this film, and the memories of making it, for the rest of her life, whether I talk about it or not. If this film goes by unscathed, more like it will be made, whether I talk about it or not. Some people are going to see it and "open doors" that shouldn't be opened, whether I talk about it or not. So, while I see your point, I think that the good of talking about it and trying to take action against it outweighs the bad. We have to stop films like these and protect the children abused in them, not just ignore them.
It's too late for that [not giving it publicity] now I guess, isn't it? In all seriousness though, I think you all are misled in your strategy. This movie is a violation of law: should we ignore that? This movie is child abuse, and possibly child porn: should we ignore that? This movie is fodder for pedophiles: should we ignore that? I do not think so. As Christians, we are to be preservatives in the culture--not escapists. Ignoring something, in this case, is neglect--neglect of a child, and neglect of our society as a whole. Also, you need to recognize a simple "risk-reward" ratio. If Christians remain quiet, the pedophiles will go see this movie, the makers will get off scotch-free, and Dakota Fanning will come up on the short end of the stick, as well as other child actors in the future, and our society as a whole--the entertainment industry in particular. If Christians do speak out, and pray, like I have been beseeching everyone to do, this movie could very well be blocked, depriving pedophiles of a film, punishing the makers of the movie, and protecting a young girl as much as can be done at this point. If Christians talk about this and pray, but it's not God's will to block the film from being first released, action could still be taken afterwards, and Dakota and her family will need our prayers nonetheless. And, even if all seems to fail, how many people, that I have alerted, do you think are going to see this movie, thereby giving it money? One? Maybe. Two? Probably not. I see your concern, because I considered it. But I was able to quickly dismiss it. I hope you will too, because I would love to have you praying about it.
Only one more for me to say right now: Keep praying...keep blogging...keep spreading the word.
~Kingdom Advancer
First up: A person who listed his/herself simply as "Mad" commented with this profound point over at Revitalize Our Youth:
Don't they think about young girls who have been raped? How will this affect them? I don't think they understand what this will do to victims.
HCdl pointed this out in his article over at Faultline USA (Read article here) and in the same article at Wake Up America:
If Hollywood wants to make a movie demonizing child sexual abuse, that's fine. THIS AIN'T IT.
Third up: Also at Wake Up America, Debbie said this:
Remember, she has a younger sister, El Fanning I think is her name, just as talented. Is this what the little sister is going to see her bigger sister doing?
Fourth up: From right here at Kingdom Advancing, Austin commented with this:
Look at Lindsay Lohan. In The Parent Trap she was just a cute little kid. Now she's in rehab.
We should all note the astronomical difference between The Parent Trap and Hounddog.
Fifth up: Also right here at Kingdom Advancing, Solameanie made this astute inquiry:
...why is it that liberals always want to defend the indefensible?
Now, I'm not going to say that all liberals are defending this movie, but we know that some are.
Finally: I've been told twice that I shouldn't be "giving this movie free publicity," but rather should "just ignore it." These two comments are how I replied:
What you say is true, to a certain extent. But the fact is, the pedophiles are going to see this movie, whether I talk about it or not. Dakota Fanning was abused, and will have to live with this film, and the memories of making it, for the rest of her life, whether I talk about it or not. If this film goes by unscathed, more like it will be made, whether I talk about it or not. Some people are going to see it and "open doors" that shouldn't be opened, whether I talk about it or not. So, while I see your point, I think that the good of talking about it and trying to take action against it outweighs the bad. We have to stop films like these and protect the children abused in them, not just ignore them.
It's too late for that [not giving it publicity] now I guess, isn't it? In all seriousness though, I think you all are misled in your strategy. This movie is a violation of law: should we ignore that? This movie is child abuse, and possibly child porn: should we ignore that? This movie is fodder for pedophiles: should we ignore that? I do not think so. As Christians, we are to be preservatives in the culture--not escapists. Ignoring something, in this case, is neglect--neglect of a child, and neglect of our society as a whole. Also, you need to recognize a simple "risk-reward" ratio. If Christians remain quiet, the pedophiles will go see this movie, the makers will get off scotch-free, and Dakota Fanning will come up on the short end of the stick, as well as other child actors in the future, and our society as a whole--the entertainment industry in particular. If Christians do speak out, and pray, like I have been beseeching everyone to do, this movie could very well be blocked, depriving pedophiles of a film, punishing the makers of the movie, and protecting a young girl as much as can be done at this point. If Christians talk about this and pray, but it's not God's will to block the film from being first released, action could still be taken afterwards, and Dakota and her family will need our prayers nonetheless. And, even if all seems to fail, how many people, that I have alerted, do you think are going to see this movie, thereby giving it money? One? Maybe. Two? Probably not. I see your concern, because I considered it. But I was able to quickly dismiss it. I hope you will too, because I would love to have you praying about it.
Only one more for me to say right now: Keep praying...keep blogging...keep spreading the word.
~Kingdom Advancer
Friday, January 19, 2007
Updates (Round 2) on "Wrong in So Many Ways"
Time for more updates.
First, and most importantly, is that I'm hearing conflicting reports about when the movie is coming out. Originally, I heard "next week at the Sundance Film Festival." Then, "this week at the Sundance Film Festival." Followed by "January 18th," and now, finally, "January 22." Let's hope the latter is true. That still leaves time to stop this film in its "hound dog" tracks. Here are the two places I saw the "January 22" report: Christian Worldview Network and The Detroit News. The Detroit News' article mentions a fact that I've known about, but have failed to mention: this is not the first film Dakota Fanning has acted in that most people wouldn't let a 12-year-old see. She's been in Hide and Seek, called a "slasher" film; War of the Worlds with Tom Cruise, a sci-fi thriller/horror; and Man on Fire with Denzel Washington, an intense R-rated movie. What does this show? That it seems that her parents have been irresponsible in their pursuit of fame for their daughter before this incident, although the case could be well made that filming such stories is not nearly intense as watching them. But it also should be noted that even these roles don't seem to compare to that of Hounddog.
Secondly, I've seen a couple of interesting articles on this movie that were written a long time ago (August and September). Things have been known about this film for a while. Let's hope these "fired-up" efforts--like this one I've tried to start--are not too little, too late.
Dakota Fanning 'raped' in new film, dated August 7th, 2006, talks about the potential legal ramifications that the makers of this movie could face. It also talks about the writer-director's past, and more. Here are some of the most thought-provoking excerpts:
...to make such a scene could be first-degree sexual exploitation of a child, a charge on the same level with armed robbery...
World Entertainment News Network said the movie was a shocker for Fanning's fans.
...the actress' agent, Joy Osbrink, told the New York Daily News, fans shouldn't worry.
"It's not just the rape scene – the whole story is challenging Dakota as an actress. And I've never been so proud of her in my life. I've seen the dailies, and in every scene she gets better and better."
Shouldn't worry, huh? Sounds just like an agent, and not a responsible adult looking after an impressionable child.
On Screen Pedophilia Destroying Our Young, posted September 11, 2006 and written by Ted Baehr, pretty much talks about what the title implies. It talks about "the downfall of Dakota"--jumping the gun, we can only pray, although she's definitely headed down that path. The powerful punchline to the article is this:
We need to pray for...Dakota so that [she] will be gripped by the Hand of God instead of the Jaws of Satan. [Her life needs] to be transformed by Jesus Christ so that [she] will not seek the rewards of men, but so that [she] will seek to win for the Lamb of God the rewards of His suffering.
The article also gives statistics of a poll that say that the majority of 12- to 17-year-olds "are offended by sexual material in movies and TV programs." I don't know if that's completely accurate, but the article is a good read anyway, trying to explain what's with the downfall of so many young stars.
That's all I have for now. Keep praying and raising awareness...
~Kingdom Advancer
First, and most importantly, is that I'm hearing conflicting reports about when the movie is coming out. Originally, I heard "next week at the Sundance Film Festival." Then, "this week at the Sundance Film Festival." Followed by "January 18th," and now, finally, "January 22." Let's hope the latter is true. That still leaves time to stop this film in its "hound dog" tracks. Here are the two places I saw the "January 22" report: Christian Worldview Network and The Detroit News. The Detroit News' article mentions a fact that I've known about, but have failed to mention: this is not the first film Dakota Fanning has acted in that most people wouldn't let a 12-year-old see. She's been in Hide and Seek, called a "slasher" film; War of the Worlds with Tom Cruise, a sci-fi thriller/horror; and Man on Fire with Denzel Washington, an intense R-rated movie. What does this show? That it seems that her parents have been irresponsible in their pursuit of fame for their daughter before this incident, although the case could be well made that filming such stories is not nearly intense as watching them. But it also should be noted that even these roles don't seem to compare to that of Hounddog.
Secondly, I've seen a couple of interesting articles on this movie that were written a long time ago (August and September). Things have been known about this film for a while. Let's hope these "fired-up" efforts--like this one I've tried to start--are not too little, too late.
Dakota Fanning 'raped' in new film, dated August 7th, 2006, talks about the potential legal ramifications that the makers of this movie could face. It also talks about the writer-director's past, and more. Here are some of the most thought-provoking excerpts:
...to make such a scene could be first-degree sexual exploitation of a child, a charge on the same level with armed robbery...
World Entertainment News Network said the movie was a shocker for Fanning's fans.
...the actress' agent, Joy Osbrink, told the New York Daily News, fans shouldn't worry.
"It's not just the rape scene – the whole story is challenging Dakota as an actress. And I've never been so proud of her in my life. I've seen the dailies, and in every scene she gets better and better."
Shouldn't worry, huh? Sounds just like an agent, and not a responsible adult looking after an impressionable child.
On Screen Pedophilia Destroying Our Young, posted September 11, 2006 and written by Ted Baehr, pretty much talks about what the title implies. It talks about "the downfall of Dakota"--jumping the gun, we can only pray, although she's definitely headed down that path. The powerful punchline to the article is this:
We need to pray for...Dakota so that [she] will be gripped by the Hand of God instead of the Jaws of Satan. [Her life needs] to be transformed by Jesus Christ so that [she] will not seek the rewards of men, but so that [she] will seek to win for the Lamb of God the rewards of His suffering.
The article also gives statistics of a poll that say that the majority of 12- to 17-year-olds "are offended by sexual material in movies and TV programs." I don't know if that's completely accurate, but the article is a good read anyway, trying to explain what's with the downfall of so many young stars.
That's all I have for now. Keep praying and raising awareness...
~Kingdom Advancer
Updates of Article "Wrong in So Many Ways"
Here are some updates on the situation:
First of all, I read that the movie was set to debut yesterday, but I have not heard word about whether it has indeed come out yet. Even if it has, prayers and actions need to continue to transpire.
Secondly, I would recommend you checking out Paul Petersen's site and organization, "A Minor Consideration." He writes some good things, like this:
It now appears Dakota Fanning was wearing a flesh-tone body suit (or a two piece suit) when she acted out the rape scene in "Hound Dog." Defenders of the production company were silent for two weeks when the controversy erupted, and now offer up this "cover up," days later, as proof that they were, in fact, concerned about the propriety of wardrobe worn in this rape scene using the talents of a twelve year-old child. These same voices are silent about what Dakota was wearing when she filmed the mutual masturbation scene. I keep pointing out to these people that it wasn't what Dakota was wearing, but what she was doing!
He then goes on to explain why this movie has him so bothered. Read the whole article "Pretending Leads to Reality" here. He also wrote another article. See that here.
Sean Hannity has been a loud and clear voice on this topic. Today on his website, his "free audio clip of the day" is about this topic. Go to his website by clicking here.
Sean Hannity also revealed on Fox News' Hannity & Colmes show last night that Hounddog is not the only movie to catch your eye with its subject matter at this year's Sundance Film Festival. He noted that the material ranges from bestiality to other...demented stuff, to sum it up in a couple of words.
Read the conversation that was had with actress Janine Turner here.
I'll try to update as I hear or see things.
Keep praying...
~Kingdom Advancer
First of all, I read that the movie was set to debut yesterday, but I have not heard word about whether it has indeed come out yet. Even if it has, prayers and actions need to continue to transpire.
Secondly, I would recommend you checking out Paul Petersen's site and organization, "A Minor Consideration." He writes some good things, like this:
It now appears Dakota Fanning was wearing a flesh-tone body suit (or a two piece suit) when she acted out the rape scene in "Hound Dog." Defenders of the production company were silent for two weeks when the controversy erupted, and now offer up this "cover up," days later, as proof that they were, in fact, concerned about the propriety of wardrobe worn in this rape scene using the talents of a twelve year-old child. These same voices are silent about what Dakota was wearing when she filmed the mutual masturbation scene. I keep pointing out to these people that it wasn't what Dakota was wearing, but what she was doing!
He then goes on to explain why this movie has him so bothered. Read the whole article "Pretending Leads to Reality" here. He also wrote another article. See that here.
Sean Hannity has been a loud and clear voice on this topic. Today on his website, his "free audio clip of the day" is about this topic. Go to his website by clicking here.
Sean Hannity also revealed on Fox News' Hannity & Colmes show last night that Hounddog is not the only movie to catch your eye with its subject matter at this year's Sundance Film Festival. He noted that the material ranges from bestiality to other...demented stuff, to sum it up in a couple of words.
Read the conversation that was had with actress Janine Turner here.
I'll try to update as I hear or see things.
Keep praying...
~Kingdom Advancer
Wednesday, January 17, 2007
Wrong in So Many Ways
Indecent. Inappropriate. Inexcusable. Irresponsible. Unacceptable. Unwise. Unlawful. Those are just a handful of the adjectives that come to mind when I think about the controversial film Hound Dog, starring Dakota Fanning. Yet to be released, being planned to come out during this week's Sundance Film Festival, this movie is causing an uproar because of its [insert preferred above adjective here] subject matter.
In the movie, 12-year-old rising actress Dakota Fanning plays a girl who is sexually promiscuous, and who is abused by her father throughout the movie, culminating in an intense and graphic rape scene. Apparently, Dakota's parents approved of the role.
Allow me to repeat myself in short, fragmented sentences for clarity. 12-year-old. Sexually promiscuous. Rape scene. Graphic. Intense. Parents approved. Yanking your hair out yet?
This is wrong and [insert preferred aforementioned adjective here] in so many ways, and something should be done about it. I'm doing my part right here. I'll tell you how to do yours a bit later.
First, let's look at some of the problems with the movie. Then, we'll look at some of the defenses being put forth for the film and how they are easily refuted.
1. Child Porn--Good For No One.
I don't want to rail on this point too much, because some are saying that this isn't porn, because young Fanning is filmed only from the chest up, "in the shadows," and in a full-body suit (like that makes a difference.) However, in case it is:
They say it only takes the first drink to become an alcoholic. Perhaps that first drink could come accidentally. It seems to me that the same could go for child porn and related issues. I'm not saying that people are out of control and that every viewer is going to become a pervert, but what I'm saying is that the negative effects will almost certainly outweigh the positive. No matter how the specific acts and scenes are portrayed, the images potentiallly will open doors that should remain forever shut. Whether it's an 11-year-old boy or a 40-year-old man, no one needs to see a 12-year-old girl naked, or appearing naked, on the big screen, especially when in a sexual sitiuation.
2. Against the Law.
Is that clear enough? Another abstract point at this time, but Ted Baehr and others think that this film could be a violation of federal and state child-porn and/or abuse laws. I tend to agree.
3. Feeding the Appetites of Pedophiles.
We can't always concern ourselves with how deranged minds will twist things that we say or do, but this film is absolutely asking for it. Again, regardless of portrayal, this film will likely arouse and spur on pedophiles. They probably won't care if the father in this film is portrayed as "bad" or "evil"--they are pedophiles for crying out loud!
And, worse yet, their new fantasies could very well be about little Dakota. Scary.
4. Parents, Priorities, and Perversion.
Allegedly, Fanning's parents approved of this role for their daughter because they wanted/want her to "be a star" and possibly "win an Oscar." If this is, in fact, the truth, it is a sad state of affairs. It's not only a sick testimony of Dakota's stardom-obsessed parents--and child star parents in general--but also of the Oscars themselves. Hopefully the Oscars will be a dignified awards ceremony and not give this film a second-glance.
5. Desensitization/ Slippery Slope.
If this movie is a success, it will only spawn clones, if not worse movies yet. America has already been desensitized to foul language; explicit and promiscuous sex; gruesome, graphic, and mindless violence; and death. Shall we allow our society to become desensitized to rape scenes, and child rape, at that? Let's hope and pray we will not. We must stand up for something some time in the entertainment industry. We cannot allow this corrosion of any sense of decency or moral values to continue.
6. Protecting Dakota and Other Young Actresses.
In the movie, 12-year-old rising actress Dakota Fanning plays a girl who is sexually promiscuous, and who is abused by her father throughout the movie, culminating in an intense and graphic rape scene. Apparently, Dakota's parents approved of the role.
Allow me to repeat myself in short, fragmented sentences for clarity. 12-year-old. Sexually promiscuous. Rape scene. Graphic. Intense. Parents approved. Yanking your hair out yet?
This is wrong and [insert preferred aforementioned adjective here] in so many ways, and something should be done about it. I'm doing my part right here. I'll tell you how to do yours a bit later.
First, let's look at some of the problems with the movie. Then, we'll look at some of the defenses being put forth for the film and how they are easily refuted.
1. Child Porn--Good For No One.
I don't want to rail on this point too much, because some are saying that this isn't porn, because young Fanning is filmed only from the chest up, "in the shadows," and in a full-body suit (like that makes a difference.) However, in case it is:
They say it only takes the first drink to become an alcoholic. Perhaps that first drink could come accidentally. It seems to me that the same could go for child porn and related issues. I'm not saying that people are out of control and that every viewer is going to become a pervert, but what I'm saying is that the negative effects will almost certainly outweigh the positive. No matter how the specific acts and scenes are portrayed, the images potentiallly will open doors that should remain forever shut. Whether it's an 11-year-old boy or a 40-year-old man, no one needs to see a 12-year-old girl naked, or appearing naked, on the big screen, especially when in a sexual sitiuation.
2. Against the Law.
Is that clear enough? Another abstract point at this time, but Ted Baehr and others think that this film could be a violation of federal and state child-porn and/or abuse laws. I tend to agree.
3. Feeding the Appetites of Pedophiles.
We can't always concern ourselves with how deranged minds will twist things that we say or do, but this film is absolutely asking for it. Again, regardless of portrayal, this film will likely arouse and spur on pedophiles. They probably won't care if the father in this film is portrayed as "bad" or "evil"--they are pedophiles for crying out loud!
And, worse yet, their new fantasies could very well be about little Dakota. Scary.
4. Parents, Priorities, and Perversion.
Allegedly, Fanning's parents approved of this role for their daughter because they wanted/want her to "be a star" and possibly "win an Oscar." If this is, in fact, the truth, it is a sad state of affairs. It's not only a sick testimony of Dakota's stardom-obsessed parents--and child star parents in general--but also of the Oscars themselves. Hopefully the Oscars will be a dignified awards ceremony and not give this film a second-glance.
5. Desensitization/ Slippery Slope.
If this movie is a success, it will only spawn clones, if not worse movies yet. America has already been desensitized to foul language; explicit and promiscuous sex; gruesome, graphic, and mindless violence; and death. Shall we allow our society to become desensitized to rape scenes, and child rape, at that? Let's hope and pray we will not. We must stand up for something some time in the entertainment industry. We cannot allow this corrosion of any sense of decency or moral values to continue.
6. Protecting Dakota and Other Young Actresses.
This is the biggest and most stressed point. Although Dakota Fanning has already been put through enough during filming, it needs to stop right here, and no other young actress should be subject to it. It is child-abuse most definitely--irresponsible behavior to put it lightly. Some might say that it is not abuse because Dakota consented, and is being paid. But, as former-child actor Paul Petersen noted on Fox News, a child like Dakota cannot give informed consent, and even her parents don't have that right. Abuse is abuse. Here are some points to ponder:
--Sean Hannity, of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes, noted that many former child stars have had problems later in life. But, few, if any, have been filmed in rape scenes.
--A guest on Hannity & Colmes pointed out that, once this movie comes out--if it indeed does--it will never disappear...ever. Dakota will have to live with it for the rest of her life.
--Alan Colmes, of Hannity & Colmes, quoted Fanning as saying that she is able to separate herself from her role. However, it's a completely different thing to separate yourself from the story of Charlotte's Web, or even the monsters of War of the Worlds, than the subject matter of Hound Dog.
Also, the formerly mentioned Fox News guest pointed out that even if Dakota handles this seamlessly, this film has the ability to clear the path for other productions. What about other young actresses?
--Dakota is too young. Plain and simple. The ever-earlier loss of innocence nowadays is not a good thing. Getting a gun and learning how to shoot it can be a very good thing at the right time, but not sooner.
Dakota Fanning is near the threshold of learning about sex, but definitely not acting in a promiscuous role, or acting and learning about complex issues like rape and parental abuse .
The aforementioned Petersen made another good point, saying that directors talk children through emotional scenes. How un-imaginable is it to think of her being talked through this rape scene? The effects could be absolutely detrimental.
Another thing to recognize is the potential life-lessons Dakota could take from this: what is fame worth? Your body? Your morals? Your social and mental health?
One of the biggest defenses of the film is the question, "Well, should this issue never be addressed?" Well, it has been noted by others that such an issue can be addressed in a totally different way while still being effective. Also, it doesn't have to involve a 12-year-old. Some might say that these stories need to be told to have a positive effect. True. But, in this way, water needs to be drank, not shot in the face by a firehose.
Another defense of the movie is that "It's pretend. She wasn't really raped." Well, I should hope not! But that's beside the point! There are many other significant potential results. And, besides, you can "pretend" that a knife is a cavity-causing, sugary lollipop. Just because it's not really a lollipop that will cause cavities, doesn't mean that it won't do damage when stuck into the mouth! (or vice-versa)
Thirdly, I've heard that "It's drama. Drama is often ugly. Etc.." Very true. But that gives no license to break the law, exploit and endanger a child and her future, and abandon decency!
One of the biggest defenses of the film is the question, "Well, should this issue never be addressed?" Well, it has been noted by others that such an issue can be addressed in a totally different way while still being effective. Also, it doesn't have to involve a 12-year-old. Some might say that these stories need to be told to have a positive effect. True. But, in this way, water needs to be drank, not shot in the face by a firehose.
Another defense of the movie is that "It's pretend. She wasn't really raped." Well, I should hope not! But that's beside the point! There are many other significant potential results. And, besides, you can "pretend" that a knife is a cavity-causing, sugary lollipop. Just because it's not really a lollipop that will cause cavities, doesn't mean that it won't do damage when stuck into the mouth! (or vice-versa)
Thirdly, I've heard that "It's drama. Drama is often ugly. Etc.." Very true. But that gives no license to break the law, exploit and endanger a child and her future, and abandon decency!
A similar defense to the last one is that it is "art," and the government shouldn't get involved. Cause that would be censorship, right? Yeah, right. That's simply utterly ridiculous. This is child-abuse, and it you can't hide from that behind the title of "art." As well, this type of argument would mean anyone could have simulated sex with a minor as long as they stuck a rolling camera in from of them.
Now, for a three-question survey:
Would you let your daughter, or some other young girl close to you, play in such a role?
Would you make such a movie?
Would you go see such a movie?
If you said "No" or even "Probably no" to those three questions, you've established the wrongness in your mind of this film.
Then, one more question: Can you see the potential causes and results that I postulated?
Answer "Yes" to that, and you should feel obligated and motivated to action. But, what should you do?
First off, don't see, buy, or rent this film. That's the foremost and easiest thing to do. The makers of this movie want money, fame, and exposure of themselves and their work. Don't give it to them. If this movie is a success, as I stated beforehand, it will only encourage the makers and other filmmakers to produce more of the same kind of flicks, if not even more "edgy." This movie needs to bomb, if it comes out at all. (Hopefully it will be cancelled from its release.) I didn't even want to mention it by name and thereby give it publicity, but I felt that it was a necessary evil.
This boycott is not an end in and of itself, however. The claim, "If you don't like what's in the movie, just don't see it," is not sufficient. It's like, if there were a serial killer who killed people in restrooms, rather than trying to catch and stop the killer, saying, "If you don't want to be murdered, just don't use the restroom."
So, secondly, we must pray. First off, pray that this film will be successfully blocked from coming out. Pray for those to be effective who have more legal and public clout than we do. Pray that the movie will be an extreme failure. But if that be not God's plan, pray that the movie won't open any doors that some will walk through. Pray for the children who may become targets as a result of this film--that God will protect them. Pray for Dakota Fanning. Pray for her parents, who need a wake-up call from God. Ultimately, pray that God's will be done.
Thirdly, take action. One way to do this is by blogging about the subject. I beseech you to link to this article in one of your own posts. Link to the site(s) [for further action] that I will try to list shortly. Raise awareness throughout the blogosphere by commenting and e-mailing others.
The other thing to do is to support efforts made against this film. I will try to post them in the near future.
Now, for a three-question survey:
Would you let your daughter, or some other young girl close to you, play in such a role?
Would you make such a movie?
Would you go see such a movie?
If you said "No" or even "Probably no" to those three questions, you've established the wrongness in your mind of this film.
Then, one more question: Can you see the potential causes and results that I postulated?
Answer "Yes" to that, and you should feel obligated and motivated to action. But, what should you do?
First off, don't see, buy, or rent this film. That's the foremost and easiest thing to do. The makers of this movie want money, fame, and exposure of themselves and their work. Don't give it to them. If this movie is a success, as I stated beforehand, it will only encourage the makers and other filmmakers to produce more of the same kind of flicks, if not even more "edgy." This movie needs to bomb, if it comes out at all. (Hopefully it will be cancelled from its release.) I didn't even want to mention it by name and thereby give it publicity, but I felt that it was a necessary evil.
This boycott is not an end in and of itself, however. The claim, "If you don't like what's in the movie, just don't see it," is not sufficient. It's like, if there were a serial killer who killed people in restrooms, rather than trying to catch and stop the killer, saying, "If you don't want to be murdered, just don't use the restroom."
So, secondly, we must pray. First off, pray that this film will be successfully blocked from coming out. Pray for those to be effective who have more legal and public clout than we do. Pray that the movie will be an extreme failure. But if that be not God's plan, pray that the movie won't open any doors that some will walk through. Pray for the children who may become targets as a result of this film--that God will protect them. Pray for Dakota Fanning. Pray for her parents, who need a wake-up call from God. Ultimately, pray that God's will be done.
Thirdly, take action. One way to do this is by blogging about the subject. I beseech you to link to this article in one of your own posts. Link to the site(s) [for further action] that I will try to list shortly. Raise awareness throughout the blogosphere by commenting and e-mailing others.
The other thing to do is to support efforts made against this film. I will try to post them in the near future.
Never Retreat. Always Advance. If God Be For Us, Why Should We Surrender?
Source: Fox News
~Kingdom Advancer
Source: Fox News
~Kingdom Advancer
Updates:
January 19, 2007
Here are some updates on the situation:
First of all, I read that the movie was set to debut yesterday, but I have not heard word about whether it has indeed come out yet. Even if it has, prayers and actions need to continue to transpire.
Secondly, I would recommend you checking out Paul Petersen's site and organization, "A Minor Consideration." He writes some good things, like this:
It now appears Dakota Fanning was wearing a flesh-tone body suit (or a two piece suit) when she acted out the rape scene in "Hound Dog." Defenders of the production company were silent for two weeks when the controversy erupted, and now offer up this "cover up," days later, as proof that they were, in fact, concerned about the propriety of wardrobe worn in this rape scene using the talents of a twelve year-old child. These same voices are silent about what Dakota was wearing when she filmed the mutual masturbation scene. I keep pointing out to these people that it wasn't what Dakota was wearing, but what she was doing!
He then goes on to explain why this movie has him so bothered. Read the whole article "Pretending Leads to Reality" here. He also wrote another article. See that here.
Sean Hannity has been a loud and clear voice on this topic. Today on his website, his "free audio clip of the day" is about this topic. Go to his website by clicking here.
Sean Hannity also revealed on Fox News' Hannity & Colmes show last night that Hounddog is not the only movie to catch your eye with its subject matter at this year's Sundance Film Festival. He noted that the material ranged from bestiality to other...demented stuff, to sum it up in a word.
Read the conversation that was had with actress Janine Turner here.
I'll try to update as I hear or see things.
Keep praying...
More Updates:
January 19, 2007 (7:15 p.m.)
Time for more updates.
First, and most importantly, is that I'm hearing conflicting reports about when the movie is coming out. Originally, I heard "next week at the Sundance Film Festival." Then, "this week at the Sundance Film Festival." Followed by "January 18th," and now, finally, "January 22." Let's hope the latter is true. That still leaves time to stop this film in its "hound dog" tracks. Here are the two places I saw the "January 22" report: Christian Worldview Network and The Detroit News. The Detroit News' article mentions a fact that I've known about, but have failed to mention: this is not the first film Dakota Fanning has acted in that most people wouldn't let a 12-year-old see. She's been in Hide and Seek, called a "slasher" film; War of the Worlds with Tom Cruise, a sci-fi thriller/horror; and Man on Fire with Denzel Washington, an intense R-rated movie. What does this show? That it seems that her parents have been irresponsible in their pursuit of fame for their daughter before this incident, although the case could be well made that filming such stories is not nearly intense as watching them. But it also should be noted that even these roles don't seem to compare to that of Hounddog.
Secondly, I've seen a couple of interesting articles on this movie that were written a long time ago (August and September). Things have been known about this film for a while. Let's hope these "fired-up" efforts--like this one I've tried to start--are not too little, too late.
Dakota Fanning 'raped' in new film, dated August 7th, 2006, talks about the potential legal ramifications that the makers of this movie could face. It also talks about the writer-director's past, and more. Here are some of the most thought-provoking excerpts:
...to make such a scene could be first-degree sexual exploitation of a child, a charge on the same level with armed robbery...
World Entertainment News Network said the movie was a shocker for Fanning's fans.
...the actress' agent, Joy Osbrink, told the New York Daily News, fans shouldn't worry.
"It's not just the rape scene – the whole story is challenging Dakota as an actress. And I've never been so proud of her in my life. I've seen the dailies, and in every scene she gets better and better."
Shouldn't worry, huh? Sounds just like an agent, and not a responsible adult looking after an impressionable child.
On Screen Pedophilia Destroying Our Young, posted September 11, 2006 and written by Ted Baehr, pretty much talks about what the title implies. It talks about "the downfall of Dakota"--jumping the gun, we can only pray, although she's definitely headed down that path. The powerful punchline to the article is this:
We need to pray for...Dakota so that [she] will be gripped by the Hand of God instead of the Jaws of Satan. [Her life needs] to be transformed by Jesus Christ so that [she] will not seek the rewards of men, but so that [she] will seek to win for the Lamb of God the rewards of His suffering.
The article also gives statistics of a poll that say that the majority of 12- to 17-year-olds "are offended by sexual material in movies and TV programs." I don't know if that's completely accurate, but the article is a good read anyway, trying to explain what's with the downfall of so many young stars.
That's all I have for now. Keep praying and raising awareness...
Updates (Round 3):
January 20, 2007 (7:30 p.m.)
Although I thought I had covered all the bases, there are some jewels of points made by bloggers out there, and I wanted to share them with you.
First up: A person who listed his/herself simply as "Mad" commented with this profound point over at Revitalize Our Youth:
Don't they think about young girls who have been raped? How will this affect them? I don't think they understand what this will do to victims.
HCdl pointed this out in his article over at Faultline USA (Read article here) and in the same article at Wake Up America:
If Hollywood wants to make a movie demonizing child sexual abuse, that's fine. THIS AIN'T IT.
Third up: Also at Wake Up America, Debbie said this:
Remember, she has a younger sister, El Fanning I think is her name, just as talented. Is this what the little sister is going to see her bigger sister doing?
Fourth up: From right here at Kingdom Advancing, Austin commented with this:
Look at Lindsay Lohan. In The Parent Trap she was just a cute little kid. Now she's in rehab.
We should all note the astronomical difference between The Parent Trap and Hounddog.
Fifth up: Also right here at Kingdom Advancing, Solameanie made this astute inquiry:
...why is it that liberals always want to defend the indefensible?
Now, I'm not going to say that all liberals are defending this movie, but we know that some are.
Finally: I've been told twice that I shouldn't be "giving this movie free publicity," but rather should "just ignore it." These two comments are how I replied:
What you say is true, to a certain extent. But the fact is, the pedophiles are going to see this movie, whether I talk about it or not. Dakota Fanning was abused, and will have to live with this film, and the memories of making it, for the rest of her life, whether I talk about it or not. If this film goes by unscathed, more like it will be made, whether I talk about it or not. Some people are going to see it and "open doors" that shouldn't be opened, whether I talk about it or not. So, while I see your point, I think that the good of talking about it and trying to take action against it outweighs the bad. We have to stop films like these and protect the children abused in them, not just ignore them.
It's too late for that [not giving it publicity] now I guess, isn't it? In all seriousness though, I think you all are misled in your strategy. This movie is a violation of law: should we ignore that? This movie is child abuse, and possibly child porn: should we ignore that? This movie is fodder for pedophiles: should we ignore that? I do not think so. As Christians, we are to be preservatives in the culture--not escapists. Ignoring something, in this case, is neglect--neglect of a child, and neglect of our society as a whole. Also, you need to recognize a simple "risk-reward" ratio. If Christians remain quiet, the pedophiles will go see this movie, the makers will get off scotch-free, and Dakota Fanning will come up on the short end of the stick, as well as other child actors in the future, and our society as a whole--the entertainment industry in particular. If Christians do speak out, and pray, like I have been beseeching everyone to do, this movie could very well be blocked, depriving pedophiles of a film, punishing the makers of the movie, and protecting a young girl as much as can be done at this point. If Christians talk about this and pray, but it's not God's will to block the film from being first released, action could still be taken afterwards, and Dakota and her family will need our prayers nonetheless. And, even if all seems to fail, how many people, that I have alerted, do you think are going to see this movie, thereby giving it money? One? Maybe. Two? Probably not. I see your concern, because I considered it. But I was able to quickly dismiss it. I hope you will too, because I would love to have you praying about it.
Only one more for me to say right now: Keep praying...keep blogging...keep spreading the word.
~Kingdom Advancer
Updates (Round 4)
January 22 (11:05 p.m.)
Well, Hounddog has now been screened at the Sundance Film Festival. That's unfortunate and disappointing, but it is neither a reason to give up nor to be too discouraged.
I will try to post a complete update soon.
~Kingdom Advancer
The battle to block the screening is over...but we need to remember that the war--for souls, society, and justice--is ongoing. And the battle over Hounddog is not over yet either.
Updates (Round 5)
January 23, 2007 (7:15 p.m.)
Well, Hounddog has now been screened at the Sundance Film Festival. That is a disappointment, but we should not be too discouraged.
Jeanine Pirro, the Republican D.A. in New York, who personally saw the screening, was on Fox News' Hannity & Colmes. She said that the outrage and analysis of the movie was completely overblown (by people like us). She said that there "was no touching," Dakota was only shown "from the shoulders up," and that the rape "was made in the editing room."
This is not a reason to be disappointed with ourselves, thinking that we overreacted. If, indeed, the movie is not as graphic as once thought, this is a victory, albeit a small one. Sean Hannity aptly pointed out that the movie went through 29 hours of re-editing. It is very likely that the film, if it in fact is "cleaner" than anticipated, was sanitized due to criticism. For instance, the Pirro on Fox News' made no mention of the mutual masturbation scene that was reportedly filmed involving Dakota. Hmm..... Where did that scene go, I wonder?
Not everyone shares the same opinion with Pirro, however. This is what Roger Friedman said on FoxNews.com:
Right away, I will tell you: 12-year-old Dakota Fanning plays a girl who endures a graphically suggested rape. If that’s not enough, she is also filmed sleeping dreamily while a half dozen real snakes slither all over her.
The rape scene, no matter how it’s spun, is disturbing and unsettling in fictional terms. In real life, though, it’s creepier to think that Dakota’s parents considered this a scene that was appropriate for their daughter.
...
That her moves are suggestive is another matter altogether. The director seems to be implying that Lewellen is almost asking for her rape by a 20-year-old boy who delivers the family’s milk.
It’s either that or Lewellen should be allowed to act seductively without fear of being attacked. Either way, the arguments do not stand up.
And here's a correction, courtesy of this article: the rape in the movie isn't incest. My apologies for the mistake. It appears that, while being abused by her father, she is raped by "a 20-year-old boy who delivers the family's milk."
Although sanitation--once again, if it did occur--is a partial victory, it is not complete. There are still many problematic questions with this film.
It still has the potential to turn on pedophiles. What about that?
Whas was actually filmed, as in, what got left on the cutting room floor? It's not just what made it in the film that counts, but what was made FOR the film.
If the rape was "made in the editing room," why would Dakota's mom and agent expect an Oscar? Actresses, not editors, generally win Oscars for "Best Actress." Unless, of course, the rest of the acting in the movie was just that good.
If the rape was "made in the editing room," why was the role so reportedly "challenging" for Dakota?
What about coaching? Was she coached through the scene? What exactly did Dakota have to act out?
I believe that I heard that the filming of the scene took place over several days. The scene was that long? Or, there were that many camera angles and that much unused footage? They made Dakota dwell on the scene--the topic--for days?
Either the director or Fanning's agent (I can't remember) made a comment that Dakota was dancing around the set after filming the scene because she knew she had done such a good job. What had she done? Or, was this comment referring to a different scene?
Then, there's the ultimate question, which Sean Hannity raised: Can a rape scene with a 12-year-old girl ever be done tastefully? I don't think so. But, for the sake of discussion, if so, who gets to arbitrarily draw the line between a "tasteful" rape scene and an "untasteful" one?
Also, the questions still remain: what lessons did Dakota learn? What fame is worth? What did she find out that she shouldn't know about yet?
This is still, in all likelihood, child abuse. Child porn? That's more of a question now, although we don't know what's on the uncut reel.
So, ultimately, most--if not all--of the points in my original article continue to ring true now that the movie is out, even if what people like Pirro say is true.
We need to continue to pray for Dakota. Also, prayer needs to be made for Dakota's parents, who should be discouraged and/or hindered from her full-speed-ahead pursuit of fame for their daughter. They, and their daughter, need to find God. As well, this needs to be a springboard to talk about what's acceptable and what's not in the arena of entertainment. The efforts and outrage MUST continue. Legal action, if it is taken, will take a while to unfold, but that's still a possibility. The makers of the film need to be pressured to release all footage, not just what they decided to let the public see. They will do this if they are truly innocent. The battle to block the screening is over...but we need to remember that the war--for souls, society, and justice--is ongoing.
Also, this should be a conversation-starter for the topic of child-rape and abuse. People like myself have been criticized as "trying to avoid the topic." Well, that's obviously off-base, but if you want to talk about it, let's talk about it, not shoot a movie about it.
In conclusion, let's hope and pray that the movie is not as bad as feared and that it won't have the suspected results, but let's also work and pray that there are still consequences for the making of this movie, and that it will be severely discouraged from happening again. Having not seen it myself, that's all I can say for now.
~Kingdom Advancer
Keep praying...keep talking...
ALL FURTHER UPDATES CAN BE FOUND AS THEIR OWN POSTS ON KINGDOM ADVANCING.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
