The Catholic League is all upset about an independent film called Hounddog staring Dakota Fanning. There is a scene in the movie where Dakota Fanning’s character is raped. Now, just to clear this up, Miss Fanning was not actually raped, this is a movie and the scene never actually happened. (It should be noted that she was wearing a body suit during the entire scene and at no point appears nude in the film.)
The League claims that Fanning’s mother and the producers of the film are “accessories to a crime” and have asked the Department of Justice to investigate it.
The Catholic Church has been criticized for allowing sexual abuse of minors to occur, he said. “Let’s see now whether Hollywood will be held to the same level of scrutiny.”
The Catholic Church has been criticized for allowing actual sexual abuse of minors to occur. Widespread sexual abuse, might I add. Why should Hollywood be held to the “same level of scrutiny” for one instance of fake sexual abuse?! Do these morons even recognize the difference?
I, of course, don’t believe an actual crime occured, but I’m not sure I feel all that comfortable with it being allowed to happen, even if just simulated on a set. She is a minor, and although a serious actor, who is mentally mature beyond her age (from interviews I have seen), consent on her part needs to be judged properly. I don’t know where the line should be drawn (age, etc.), but if this happened to a five year old actress, I believe a line would be crossed
I don’t have the answer, but in general I would rather err on the side of protecting our young, over anything for ‘arts’ sake.
1. “I don’t have the answer…”
To me an actor or actress should allowed to film any scene as long as they are mature enough to understand that it is fake. Any kid forced to participate in a scene that he or she believes is real should not be allowed.
This kid played some pretty good parts as a child, Uptown Girls was one of the three I’ve seen her in, another was War Of The Worlds and the third was something she did with Denzel set in Mexico. Apparently her “handlers” have decided to play the sexual card early on in her budding career, but they screwed the pooch: the critics hammered the movie. I haven’t seen it, nor shall I, but the thought intrudes that perhaps she is being cast not as an actress but as a “hook” for all dirty old men (and maybe a less than squeaky clean woman or two) and that the DVD sales will make up for the dismal box office. I hate to see a kid fall into the corporate clutches of mass entertainment, but it happens.
This is an indy film, and not made from some tired old mass appeal formula. Indy films should push the envelope by definition. Regardless of what they say, any organized religious association will try to force their values down you throat, and perhaps kill you if you don’t swallow it. This nation is becoming so diverse it’s going to rip itself apart.
3. “the thought intrudes that perhaps she is being cast not as an actress but as a “hook” for all dirty old men “
Actually, the events in the film are based on a true story. There is no evidence that the scene is sexualized or glamorized. It’s presented as being a bad thing. This is not a purely exploitive film like the Blue Lagoon or Pretty Baby.
And if anything, I’d guess that her “handlers” want her to do a serious “art” movie now and then to contrast the Hollywood crap she normally does.
What I cannot understand is why the League is giving this movie so much free publicity! If they had shut their mouths no one would have ever heard of it.
Isn’t there a law in the US that prohibits OF AGE actors portraying minors in sexual roles?
Same old arguments when Jodie Foster was 13 and played a hooker in Taxi Driver and when Brooke Shields was 12 and played one in Pretty Baby.
And this is why I’m no longer Catholic…
Wait, exactly when has the Catholic League actually punished its members for sexually abusing anyone?
Last time I checked, they hadn’t punished anyone, hadn’t demoted/removed anyone, hadn’t held any one of its members for any sort of misconduct.
Ridiculous.
What would jesus recommend? Does the religious community really want to control what people say, hear and do?
Let the story be told.
Isn’t there a law in the US that prohibits OF AGE actors portraying minors in sexual roles?
You do realize that there’s a very distinct difference between the two, right? Because normal people know there’s a difference.
Then there are the people who think they’re the same because they’re afraid of both, or the people who think they’re the same because they get off on both. Your comment makes me wonder which of these two groups you belong to…
The difference between Fake rape and real rape is usually $200 an hour.
Maybe somebody can play fake rape with your daughter, as long as she consents.
#8, that is why I am still a Catholic.
13. “that is why I am still a Catholic.”
I’m confused. You’re still a Catholic because you also believe that decades of genuine rape is “the same” as one incident of fake rape?
If you are a Catholic, I’d be much more worried about your son than your daughter!
The real irony is that nobody objects when a child is (fictionally) murdered in a movie, or is otherwise the fictional victim of violence. Is fake rape worse than fake murder?
I suppose in the U.S. it is, since the country seems to think that ANY sex (even consensual sex among adults) is worse than violence (otherwise, why do movies with sexual content get R or NC-17 ratings and violent movies can get a PG-13?).
Thank you #13 for pointing out the usual hypocrisies of this board, which basically says if it involves someone else’s its OK.
#2, you responded to me: “To me an actor or actress should allowed to film any scene as long as they are mature enough to understand that it is fake.”
The problem with that way of thinking is that it is impractical. Do we have “mature monitors” that are involved with all aspects of a minor’s life to determine if they can have sex? simulate child rape? drive? quit school?
Unfortunately, since we don’t have a reasonable qualitative way to decide, we have to use numbers: ie: age of consent, age to drive, age to quit school. It may not be perfect (it isn’t, but it is a lot more practical that other methods.
I understand the need for situational flexibility, but as #13 said, how does one disprove that someone’s 10 year old daughter gave consent?
Actually, they are raising good questions. There needs to be examination of scenes like this to determine if they are appropriate. I sounds to me that Ms. Fannings parents, the producers, the director and the script writer all agree that this is necessary for the plot of the movie and that the story of the movie is one that needs to be told, so while the Catholic League doesn’t believe it, the important questions have already been asked and answered.
Unfortunately they are putting thier own values and whether or not they believe this would be appropraite for thier own children to participate in and trying to map it to Dakota Fanning and her family.
In addition one of the effects of completely barring a scene like this, is that you cannot display the extremely negative effects of childhood sexual abuse. Which I get the impression of what this movie is trying to do.
I don’t know that I’ll see it, but more because I don’t know if I can handle the feeling of depression when I think of how common the situation is than how offended I would be by the depiction.
#17. Look up the Hays Codes. They worked for 30 years until MGM decided to release a film in violation of the law. Never stand between a man and his money.
#4 – This nation is becoming so diverse it’s going to rip itself apart.
Or so I keep being promised… Let’s go people… I’m not getting any younger here.
16. “Unfortunately, since we don’t have a reasonable qualitative way to decide, we have to use numbers: ie: age of consent, age to drive, age to quit school…”
Lou, you must be Catholic, because you too are having trouble distinguishing between reality and fantasy.
Having sex is a real thing with real dangers. Driving a car is a real thing with real dangers. Drinking alcohol is a real thing with real dangers. It makes sense to protect children from real dangers. Thus, enforcing age of consent in such situations is perfectly acceptable. However, equating those real dangers to pretend dangers is simply ludicrous.
Parents make decisions for their kids all the time. My son is 5 and I let him snowboard. It’s dangerous, but it’s worth the risk. If I can make that decision for my son, then I’m sure Miss Fanning’s parents can allow her to pretend to be in danger.
I haven’t seen the movie, but from what I’ve read, the entire point of the rape scene is to say “this is a bad thing!” If a mature 12 year old understands this, and is willing to ACT this scene out with the help and guidance of her parents, I don’t see the problem.
There’s way too much belief in society today, that most sexual abuse of children consists of touchy-feely “you want a piece of candy little girl” abuse. When the fact of the matter is that often it is a violent, hideous RAPE that leaves the child scarred for their entire life (not that the touchy-feely stuff doesn’t do that too).
But, it’s rather uncomfortable to talk about… so let’s all ignore it and pretend it doesn’t happen.
#20 – Remarkably well said.
#21 – And if anyone doesn’t believe you, they can go talk to a stripper for an hour. Sexual abuse will fuck you up.
But the thing is… In this nation we are so afraid of healthy natural sex that we can’t really tell the difference.
Curiously, did these same zealots protest Hard Candy as well?
SN: Well worded rebuttal, with very good points, but I still feel uncomfortable. To really stretch for an example, I don’t think a parent can, for example charge people who want to hug their kids, even though they can completely control the situation (limit any real abuse), and even have the consent of the child.
I just think we should avoid putting our youngest into sexual situations set up by, and for the benefit, of adults. This was not *her* idea, and it was not stumbled into during situations with her peers (age not career). I’m not an idiot, or alarmist, and I’m a libertarian on virtually everything else (want to sell your kidney, go ahead, want to sell two, be my guest!), but like I said, when it comes to kids (whatever that dividing line is), I tend to be cautious.
“The Catholic Church has been criticized”
I guess “criticized” is this guy’s euphemism for “sued nearly to the breaking point.” and
“for allowing sexual abuse of minors to occur, ”
is another one for “actively covering up the crimes of pervert priests.”
Truly demented.
24. Good point Doug. I wanted to say the same thing, but I couldn’t have put it as well as you.
#5, SN
What I cannot understand is why the League is giving this movie so much free publicity! If they had shut their mouths no one would have ever heard of it.
I wonder if the producers might have had a hand in getting the League to criticize it. I can honestly say I wouldn’t have known about or given a constipated fart about the movie otherwise. Now that I know about the movie, I’m still not interested.
23. I’m glad we’re being reasonable. I too am uncomfortable about dangers my children face. I was uncomfortable when my son started his first day of school. I took time off of work to make sure he got on the right bus home. I’m uncomfortable when they ride their bikes, run on gravel, or even walk through busy parking lots while I’m holding their hands. But we cannot lock them up to keep them safe. That never works.
And I too agree that we should avoid putting our youngest into sexual situations. I have not seen the scene. From what I have read it was shot in two different parts, his and hers, and then edited together.
And if the point of the scene was to titillate adults, then I’d agree 100% that an actual crime would have been committed. I think the child porn laws in our country makes sense.
Dakota Fanning is an actress. From what I hear she’s quite talented. She may only be 12 years old, but at the same age Ben Franklin was helping to run a printing press. Given the choice between holding my children back and letting them expand their talents, I hope I always pick the latter.
Religious people don’t want to “control” what other people think, watch and hear. They are entitled to their opinion and are fully entitled to criticise Hollywood, the government, big corporations, the US army, anyone. They have their message to get out and they are entitled to do it. You don’t have to like it or follow it. They certainly don’t have the force of law enforce correct speech and thinking. Aren’t the Democrats currently pushing for a hate speech law? Maybe the wannabe civil libertarians on this board need to think about the free speech implications of that.
As far as the movie industry fat cats are concerned, I am sure plenty of pedophiles will enjoy Hollywood’s latest contribution to the culture, even if the rape is “simulated”. I imagine the rape scenes will be available on YouTube or eleswhere on the web in a few weeks and some people will be running it on continuous loop. Hey it might even encourage a few whackos to have a go at the real thing. Hollywood will tell you, but not sponsors, that movies don’t influence anyone, which is of course why big corporations don’t spend any money on product placements. Not.
I am also sure Dakota Fanning’s parents and agents signed a big fat waiver exempting the producers from any threat of future law suit due to psychological issues that may arise in the future from this movie. So no one is hurt?
This begs the question, what shouldn’t be seen on a theater screen due to societal acceptance.
#28, What the eff are you babbling about???
Aren’t the Democrats currently pushing for a hate speech law? Maybe the wannabe civil libertarians on this board need to think about the free speech implications of that.
Are they? I am totally unaware of any law being contemplated by Congress that would limit our free speech. I would also think that such a law would be unconstitutional. I think your link is a little too far out there.