What a reaction. She's not even naked in the film, she's fully clothed. What, do they think the director had the other kid ACTUALLY RAPE HER for realism or something?
Guys, it's not rape that they have a problem with, it's talking about it that's a problem. Rape, especially child-rape, is something that should stay in the home and it's just not right to talk about it. In fundie-communities, I mean. If you don't have something nice to say, don't say anything at all, and all that.
Fucking fucked up fucks hiding behind fucking religion as if it's going to protect them from my zankantou...
There seriously is a culture of silence about that shit in fundie-communities.
This is really frustrating to read, especially since I was poking around on an internet forum for teens who want to stay pure this morning - it was really fun to read topics about how it is a girl's responsibility if she is wearing her clothes too tight or her chest is too big or her skirt is above her knees and she tempts a boy into sin.
I mean really - why bother caring for actual victims of rape when you can spend your time being outraged at fake rape and teaching your sons that it is not his fault if a wanton fourteen year old temptress can't keep her shoulders and elbows covered like a proper young lady should?
On a sidenote, my sister's kids aren't allowed to watch The Lion King because the lions aren't married.
I'd take the kids for a day and have them watch Lion King. But then I like to start trouble with family members that are stupid.
I just pop DVDs the parents haven't heard of, but would surely object to, and show them to the kids. They never specifically told me NOT to show them Kiki's Delivery Service even though the main character is a witch, right? Unfortunately the oldest girl (12) is a follow-the-rules type. She used to want to call her mom to make sure every film was okay. But since their parents started letting them watch the Lord of the Rings trilogy and Star Wars, my stock response has been, "This is MUCH less violent than Lord of the Rings, so obviously it's okay."
On a sidenote, my sister's kids aren't allowed to watch The Lion King because the lions aren't married.
I'd take the kids for a day and have them watch Lion King. But then I like to start trouble with family members that are stupid.
I just pop DVDs the parents haven't heard of, but would surely object to, and show them to the kids. They never specifically told me NOT to show them Kiki's Delivery Service even though the main character is a witch, right? Unfortunately the oldest girl (12) is a follow-the-rules type. She used to want to call her mom to make sure every film was okay. But since their parents started letting them watch the Lord of the Rings trilogy and Star Wars, my stock response has been, "This is MUCH less violent than Lord of the Rings, so obviously it's okay."
Good for you. Keep up the hard fight against the stupids of the world.
What a reaction. She's not even naked in the film, she's fully clothed. What, do they think the director had the other kid ACTUALLY RAPE HER for realism or something?
That's how I would've filmed it. Modern directors are a bunch of pussies.
Tube on
0
Options
GoslingLooking Up Soccer In Mongolia Right Now, ProbablyWatertown, WIRegistered Userregular
What a reaction. She's not even naked in the film, she's fully clothed. What, do they think the director had the other kid ACTUALLY RAPE HER for realism or something?
That's how I would've filmed it. Modern directors are a bunch of pussies.
You don't have to. As long as the message you wish to convey is conveyed, who needs the actual scene sometimes? The shower scene in Psycho never showed the knife go in (save for three subliminal frames, and even then only barely so), but you got the idea there too. Not every movie needs to be like Jurassic Park or something where you have a dinosaur eat a guy on a Port-o-Potty who is later referred to in the credits as "Poor Bastard".
Gosling on
I have a new soccer blog The Minnow Tank. Reading it psychically kicks Sepp Blatter in the bean bag.
Why the fuck do people think that hiding a problem makes it go away?
I mean, while I don't support puritanical censorship of anything that has to do with sex, at least the idea there is that we are protecting our society frombeing "exposed" and "corrupted" by it. Even if the ideas are dumb, the intentions are for the "right" reasons.
But here, they say nothing about the rape being innappropriate, but that it's too serious an issue, and many women are forced to live with scars from it secretly.
Well, FUCK! They're shamed and hiding, let's get this out in the fucking open, then! It's almost as though they are saying "THousands or women are forced to secretly live with the shame of having been raped as children, so we must stop this movie from being shown so we can keep it that way."
It's almost as though they are saying "THousands or women are forced to secretly live with the shame of having been raped as children, so we must stop this movie from being shown so we can keep it that way."
Almost? I thought thats exactly what they are trying to say. This way, if no one ever comes forward from sexual abuse, the catholic church can get away with things it shouldn't, and those "good ol' boys" from down south can have the fun they want to have. Then they will keep giving millions of dollars to the televangelists who do nothing but rot the brains worse than any "murder sim" could.
This is really frustrating to read, especially since I was poking around on an internet forum for teens who want to stay pure this morning - it was really fun to read topics about how it is a girl's responsibility if she is wearing her clothes too tight or her chest is too big or her skirt is above her knees and she tempts a boy into sin.
I mean really - why bother caring for actual victims of rape when you can spend your time being outraged at fake rape and teaching your sons that it is not his fault if a wanton fourteen year old temptress can't keep her shoulders and elbows covered like a proper young lady should?
come on. We all know guys aren't really responsible for thier actions. Thier cock made them do it.
redx on
They moistly come out at night, moistly.
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
Why the fuck do people think that hiding a problem makes it go away?
I mean, while I don't support puritanical censorship of anything that has to do with sex, at least the idea there is that we are protecting our society frombeing "exposed" and "corrupted" by it. Even if the ideas are dumb, the intentions are for the "right" reasons.
But here, they say nothing about the rape being innappropriate, but that it's too serious an issue, and many women are forced to live with scars from it secretly.
Well, FUCK! They're shamed and hiding, let's get this out in the fucking open, then! It's almost as though they are saying "THousands or women are forced to secretly live with the shame of having been raped as children, so we must stop this movie from being shown so we can keep it that way."
I think that some fundamentalists have a kind of Victorian concept of morality - that exposing or talking about horrible things desensitizes the general population and encourages the sickos. It probably has some level of truth in some instances - I think the glorification of and fixation on graphic violence, for instance, is both a reflection and influence on our national psyche. From what I know of the movie, I don't agree with their take on this instance, however.
Irond Will on
0
Options
Nova_CI have the needThe need for speedRegistered Userregular
Also, I seem to remember some horrible Grisham movie that revolved around the gang rape of a black girl by racists in some hick burg. I don't really remember any outcry over that one. Is this current round of clucking a function of the fact that Fanning is both well-known to the "family movies" crowd and white?
Yeah. A Time to Kill. That was my first thought as soon as I started reading the article. I'm thinking you hit the nail on the head thing with the "Dakota Fanning is white" one and by the sounds of it, the rape scene in A Time to Kill is much more graphic than the one in Hounddog, but I'd have to watch the film to be sure.
Although, the scene in A Time to Kill was tough and I'm not sure I want to see another film with a child rape scene. Hell, I have trouble with rape scenes in general.
Why the fuck do people think that hiding a problem makes it go away?
I mean, while I don't support puritanical censorship of anything that has to do with sex, at least the idea there is that we are protecting our society frombeing "exposed" and "corrupted" by it. Even if the ideas are dumb, the intentions are for the "right" reasons.
But here, they say nothing about the rape being innappropriate, but that it's too serious an issue, and many women are forced to live with scars from it secretly.
Well, FUCK! They're shamed and hiding, let's get this out in the fucking open, then! It's almost as though they are saying "THousands or women are forced to secretly live with the shame of having been raped as children, so we must stop this movie from being shown so we can keep it that way."
So, are they objecting to the idea that a twelve year old (in the process of acting the scene) is being exposed to the idea of child rape, the act of simulated child rape itself, or the publishing of something that presents itself as film of a child rape?
That's the only potential sticking point for me. Rape is one of the most horrific of crimes, and having a child deal with those issues on such an intimate level - basically, pretending as best she can that she's being raped - could be problematic. Clearly, a child who isn't emotionally responsible enough to handle the subject could be all kinds of fucked up by it.
But it sounds like in this specific case, it was handled well. Fanning is incredibly precocious, and it sounds as if all involved took great pains to make sure that she could handle the role. So while I can see cause for concern in the abstract, I think the outcry over this particular movie, when it sounds like everyone was being pretty responsible about the whole issues, is unwarranted.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
What a reaction. She's not even naked in the film, she's fully clothed. What, do they think the director had the other kid ACTUALLY RAPE HER for realism or something?
That's how I would've filmed it. Modern directors are a bunch of pussies.
You don't have to. As long as the message you wish to convey is conveyed, who needs the actual scene sometimes? The shower scene in Psycho never showed the knife go in (save for three subliminal frames, and even then only barely so), but you got the idea there too. Not every movie needs to be like Jurassic Park or something where you have a dinosaur eat a guy on a Port-o-Potty who is later referred to in the credits as "Poor Bastard".
mtvcdm, meet Cardboard Tube. I suspect he's presently laughing at you.
This is really frustrating to read, especially since I was poking around on an internet forum for teens who want to stay pure this morning - it was really fun to read topics about how it is a girl's responsibility if she is wearing her clothes too tight or her chest is too big or her skirt is above her knees and she tempts a boy into sin.
I mean really - why bother caring for actual victims of rape when you can spend your time being outraged at fake rape and teaching your sons that it is not his fault if a wanton fourteen year old temptress can't keep her shoulders and elbows covered like a proper young lady should?
come on. We all know guys aren't really responsible for thier actions. Thier cock made them do it.
Also, I seem to remember some horrible Grisham movie that revolved around the gang rape of a black girl by racists in some hick burg. I don't really remember any outcry over that one. Is this current round of clucking a function of the fact that Fanning is both well-known to the "family movies" crowd and white?
Yeah. A Time to Kill. That was my first thought as soon as I started reading the article. I'm thinking you hit the nail on the head thing with the "Dakota Fanning is white" one and by the sounds of it, the rape scene in A Time to Kill is much more graphic than the one in Hounddog, but I'd have to watch the film to be sure.
Although, the scene in A Time to Kill was tough and I'm not sure I want to see another film with a child rape scene. Hell, I have trouble with rape scenes in general.
Yeah, on the one hand, I want to see this movie just to stick it to the ignorant asshole. On the other hand... child rape. Who wants to willingly see that?
Also, I seem to remember some horrible Grisham movie that revolved around the gang rape of a black girl by racists in some hick burg. I don't really remember any outcry over that one. Is this current round of clucking a function of the fact that Fanning is both well-known to the "family movies" crowd and white?
Yeah. A Time to Kill. That was my first thought as soon as I started reading the article. I'm thinking you hit the nail on the head thing with the "Dakota Fanning is white" one and by the sounds of it, the rape scene in A Time to Kill is much more graphic than the one in Hounddog, but I'd have to watch the film to be sure.
Although, the scene in A Time to Kill was tough and I'm not sure I want to see another film with a child rape scene. Hell, I have trouble with rape scenes in general.
Yeah, on the one hand, I want to see this movie just to stick it to the ignorant asshole. On the other hand... child rape. Who wants to willingly see that?
I'll never understand how people can stand to actually watch the Lifetime Movie Network.
Also, I seem to remember some horrible Grisham movie that revolved around the gang rape of a black girl by racists in some hick burg. I don't really remember any outcry over that one. Is this current round of clucking a function of the fact that Fanning is both well-known to the "family movies" crowd and white?
Yeah. A Time to Kill. That was my first thought as soon as I started reading the article. I'm thinking you hit the nail on the head thing with the "Dakota Fanning is white" one and by the sounds of it, the rape scene in A Time to Kill is much more graphic than the one in Hounddog, but I'd have to watch the film to be sure.
Although, the scene in A Time to Kill was tough and I'm not sure I want to see another film with a child rape scene. Hell, I have trouble with rape scenes in general.
Yeah, on the one hand, I want to see this movie just to stick it to the ignorant asshole. On the other hand... child rape. Who wants to willingly see that?
I'll never understand how people can stand to actually watch the Lifetime Movie Network.
I know, right?
All through this thread all I could think about was that one Lifetime thing I saw where this poor little southern girl keeps getting abused (sexually and like beaten and stuff) by her drunken father or something. It was horrible. And then at the end it talked about how it was a true story and stuff. After that and A Time to Kill (which I've only read but the book description was bad enough to make me squirm) I don't think I have any desire to see this movie. However, I don't feel it should be censored, just that I have no personal desire to see it.
unilateral on
0
Options
GoslingLooking Up Soccer In Mongolia Right Now, ProbablyWatertown, WIRegistered Userregular
What a reaction. She's not even naked in the film, she's fully clothed. What, do they think the director had the other kid ACTUALLY RAPE HER for realism or something?
That's how I would've filmed it. Modern directors are a bunch of pussies.
You don't have to. As long as the message you wish to convey is conveyed, who needs the actual scene sometimes? The shower scene in Psycho never showed the knife go in (save for three subliminal frames, and even then only barely so), but you got the idea there too. Not every movie needs to be like Jurassic Park or something where you have a dinosaur eat a guy on a Port-o-Potty who is later referred to in the credits as "Poor Bastard".
mtvcdm, meet Cardboard Tube. I suspect he's presently laughing at you.
...aaaaahhhh.
Gosling on
I have a new soccer blog The Minnow Tank. Reading it psychically kicks Sepp Blatter in the bean bag.
I'd just like to point out for those that don't know, this would have been illegal under recent child pornography laws, which stated even simulations of underage sex were out of line (ostensibly to protect against such things as digitally created pedophilia pictures), but de facto probably would have been used against such works as this.
This, and well, porn -- so it was the porno industry which challenged the law all the way to the Supreme Court in order to get it overturned, so that they could continue producing things like Try-A-Teen #14 and YA: Young & Anal or The Babysitter #22, etc. without non-stop legal harassment. Hollywood actually offered little to no support in the legal battle against the law, as they basically didn't want to deal with the PR of being seen as pro-pedophilia, so really it was the truly distasteful end of the porno industry which is responsible for protecting this type of artistic expression.
Has anyone here read/seen The Color Purple? I havn't seen the movie, but the book pretty accuratly describes a 14 year old girl being raped and beaten. It recently got challenged here in Georgia on the grounds that it was potentially harmful to children in the 9th grade (who as we all know, have never had any experiance with sex by that age). The final verdict was that it was a book, and it didn't magically jump into your hands and force you to read it. AKA, if it offends you, don't see it.
I kinda see this going the same way. Big controversy for a bit, then it will all die down, and only be used as a talking point when the fundies need something to harp.
The actress who plays the rape victim had some rather insightful comments about it. This is evident in what has already been presented here in this thread, as well as other interviews like this one. It seems clear that she is mature enough for the material.
I have seen A Time to Kill, but not Hounddog. I get the sense, though, that the rape scene in Hounddog is more explicit. If I recall correctly, in the first movie, it was only implied, with scenes depicting "before" and "after."
However, considering the subject matter and memorable dialogue of A Time to Kill, the irony is rather rich if the difference in reactions is primarily subconscious racism.
HumblePie on
Remember that there is always another wiser than yourself. Unless you're that one guy.
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
Has anyone here read/seen The Color Purple? I havn't seen the movie, but the book pretty accuratly describes a 14 year old girl being raped and beaten. It recently got challenged here in Georgia on the grounds that it was potentially harmful to children in the 9th grade (who as we all know, have never had any experiance with sex by that age). The final verdict was that it was a book, and it didn't magically jump into your hands and force you to read it. AKA, if it offends you, don't see it.
I kinda see this going the same way. Big controversy for a bit, then it will all die down, and only be used as a talking point when the fundies need something to harp.
It's a little different for a book. An actual child never has to be a part of it. If you're going to film a movie about a little girl being raped, you either need to use a little girl, or you need to find someone who looks like a little girl. If you can do the latter, awesome. If the former, there are some ethical questions that you need to address.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
it was really fun to read topics about how it is a girl's responsibility if she is wearing her clothes too tight or her chest is too big or her skirt is above her knees and she tempts a boy into sin.
So, are they objecting to the idea that a twelve year old (in the process of acting the scene) is being exposed to the idea of child rape, the act of simulated child rape itself, or the publishing of something that presents itself as film of a child rape?
That's the only potential sticking point for me. Rape is one of the most horrific of crimes, and having a child deal with those issues on such an intimate level - basically, pretending as best she can that she's being raped - could be problematic. Clearly, a child who isn't emotionally responsible enough to handle the subject could be all kinds of fucked up by it.
But it sounds like in this specific case, it was handled well. Fanning is incredibly precocious, and it sounds as if all involved took great pains to make sure that she could handle the role. So while I can see cause for concern in the abstract, I think the outcry over this particular movie, when it sounds like everyone was being pretty responsible about the whole issues, is unwarranted.
Isn't this pretty much besides the point at this stage? I mean, the movie is done. It's being shown like, today. Or maybe it was yesterday. She was already exposed to whatever she was exposed to.
it was really fun to read topics about how it is a girl's responsibility if she is wearing her clothes too tight or her chest is too big or her skirt is above her knees and she tempts a boy into sin.
Wait. What?
Big-boobed women made pacts with Satan before hitting puberty.
That's the only potential sticking point for me. Rape is one of the most horrific of crimes, and having a child deal with those issues on such an intimate level - basically, pretending as best she can that she's being raped - could be problematic. Clearly, a child who isn't emotionally responsible enough to handle the subject could be all kinds of fucked up by it.
But it sounds like in this specific case, it was handled well. Fanning is incredibly precocious, and it sounds as if all involved took great pains to make sure that she could handle the role. So while I can see cause for concern in the abstract, I think the outcry over this particular movie, when it sounds like everyone was being pretty responsible about the whole issues, is unwarranted.
Isn't this pretty much besides the point at this stage? I mean, the movie is done. It's being shown like, today. Or maybe it was yesterday. She was already exposed to whatever she was exposed to.
Umm... why would that make it beside the point? If they did something wrong, it doesn't stop being wrong just because it already happened.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Isn't this pretty much besides the point at this stage? I mean, the movie is done. It's being shown like, today. Or maybe it was yesterday. She was already exposed to whatever she was exposed to.
So why arrest actual rapists? Damage is already done, I say fuck it.
I'd say in this case it agree that it sounds like it was handled well, but I also agree with ElJeffe that there were/are ethical questions that need to be addressed and considered when making such a movie. It's not all about "OLOL violence is good but sex is bad."
The opposition may be a little misguided in this case, but that doesn't mean that in general this isn't something that should be watched closely.
it was really fun to read topics about how it is a girl's responsibility if she is wearing her clothes too tight or her chest is too big or her skirt is above her knees and she tempts a boy into sin.
Wait. What?
Big-boobed women made pacts with Satan before hitting puberty.
Some people get golden fiddles, others get nice racks.
I'd just like to point out for those that don't know, this would have been illegal under recent child pornography laws, which stated even simulations of underage sex were out of line (ostensibly to protect against such things as digitally created pedophilia pictures), but de facto probably would have been used against such works as this.
This, and well, porn -- so it was the porno industry which challenged the law all the way to the Supreme Court in order to get it overturned, so that they could continue producing things like Try-A-Teen #14 and YA: Young & Anal or The Babysitter #22, etc. without non-stop legal harassment. Hollywood actually offered little to no support in the legal battle against the law, as they basically didn't want to deal with the PR of being seen as pro-pedophilia, so really it was the truly distasteful end of the porno industry which is responsible for protecting this type of artistic expression.
The more you know...
The vast majority of civil libertarians were rallying behind the porno people on this one, because they realized Romeo and Juliet would be banned under this law.
I'd just like to point out for those that don't know, this would have been illegal under recent child pornography laws, which stated even simulations of underage sex were out of line (ostensibly to protect against such things as digitally created pedophilia pictures), but de facto probably would have been used against such works as this.
This, and well, porn -- so it was the porno industry which challenged the law all the way to the Supreme Court in order to get it overturned, so that they could continue producing things like Try-A-Teen #14 and YA: Young & Anal or The Babysitter #22, etc. without non-stop legal harassment. Hollywood actually offered little to no support in the legal battle against the law, as they basically didn't want to deal with the PR of being seen as pro-pedophilia, so really it was the truly distasteful end of the porno industry which is responsible for protecting this type of artistic expression.
The more you know...
The vast majority of civil libertarians were rallying behind the porno people on this one, because they realized Romeo and Juliet would be banned under this law.
Whatever. The ACLU just really likes kiddy porn.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
I'd just like to point out for those that don't know, this would have been illegal under recent child pornography laws, which stated even simulations of underage sex were out of line (ostensibly to protect against such things as digitally created pedophilia pictures), but de facto probably would have been used against such works as this.
This, and well, porn -- so it was the porno industry which challenged the law all the way to the Supreme Court in order to get it overturned, so that they could continue producing things like Try-A-Teen #14 and YA: Young & Anal or The Babysitter #22, etc. without non-stop legal harassment. Hollywood actually offered little to no support in the legal battle against the law, as they basically didn't want to deal with the PR of being seen as pro-pedophilia, so really it was the truly distasteful end of the porno industry which is responsible for protecting this type of artistic expression.
The more you know...
The vast majority of civil libertarians were rallying behind the porno people on this one, because they realized Romeo and Juliet would be banned under this law.
Whatever. The ACLU just really likes kiddy porn.
go on Xwalk. they basically consider the ACLU and the NAMBLA to be one and the same
I'd just like to point out for those that don't know, this would have been illegal under recent child pornography laws, which stated even simulations of underage sex were out of line (ostensibly to protect against such things as digitally created pedophilia pictures), but de facto probably would have been used against such works as this.
This, and well, porn -- so it was the porno industry which challenged the law all the way to the Supreme Court in order to get it overturned, so that they could continue producing things like Try-A-Teen #14 and YA: Young & Anal or The Babysitter #22, etc. without non-stop legal harassment. Hollywood actually offered little to no support in the legal battle against the law, as they basically didn't want to deal with the PR of being seen as pro-pedophilia, so really it was the truly distasteful end of the porno industry which is responsible for protecting this type of artistic expression.
The more you know...
The vast majority of civil libertarians were rallying behind the porno people on this one, because they realized Romeo and Juliet would be banned under this law.
Whatever. The ACLU just really likes kiddy porn.
Well, when you get down to it, that's what Romeo and Juliet is, right?
Well, when you get down to it, that's what Romeo and Juliet is, right?
It's actually more like emo porn than kiddy porn.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Posts
I mean really - why bother caring for actual victims of rape when you can spend your time being outraged at fake rape and teaching your sons that it is not his fault if a wanton fourteen year old temptress can't keep her shoulders and elbows covered like a proper young lady should?
I just pop DVDs the parents haven't heard of, but would surely object to, and show them to the kids. They never specifically told me NOT to show them Kiki's Delivery Service even though the main character is a witch, right? Unfortunately the oldest girl (12) is a follow-the-rules type. She used to want to call her mom to make sure every film was okay. But since their parents started letting them watch the Lord of the Rings trilogy and Star Wars, my stock response has been, "This is MUCH less violent than Lord of the Rings, so obviously it's okay."
Good for you. Keep up the hard fight against the stupids of the world.
That's how I would've filmed it. Modern directors are a bunch of pussies.
I mean, while I don't support puritanical censorship of anything that has to do with sex, at least the idea there is that we are protecting our society frombeing "exposed" and "corrupted" by it. Even if the ideas are dumb, the intentions are for the "right" reasons.
But here, they say nothing about the rape being innappropriate, but that it's too serious an issue, and many women are forced to live with scars from it secretly.
Well, FUCK! They're shamed and hiding, let's get this out in the fucking open, then! It's almost as though they are saying "THousands or women are forced to secretly live with the shame of having been raped as children, so we must stop this movie from being shown so we can keep it that way."
Almost? I thought thats exactly what they are trying to say. This way, if no one ever comes forward from sexual abuse, the catholic church can get away with things it shouldn't, and those "good ol' boys" from down south can have the fun they want to have. Then they will keep giving millions of dollars to the televangelists who do nothing but rot the brains worse than any "murder sim" could.
come on. We all know guys aren't really responsible for thier actions. Thier cock made them do it.
Yeah. A Time to Kill. That was my first thought as soon as I started reading the article. I'm thinking you hit the nail on the head thing with the "Dakota Fanning is white" one and by the sounds of it, the rape scene in A Time to Kill is much more graphic than the one in Hounddog, but I'd have to watch the film to be sure.
Although, the scene in A Time to Kill was tough and I'm not sure I want to see another film with a child rape scene. Hell, I have trouble with rape scenes in general.
That's the only potential sticking point for me. Rape is one of the most horrific of crimes, and having a child deal with those issues on such an intimate level - basically, pretending as best she can that she's being raped - could be problematic. Clearly, a child who isn't emotionally responsible enough to handle the subject could be all kinds of fucked up by it.
But it sounds like in this specific case, it was handled well. Fanning is incredibly precocious, and it sounds as if all involved took great pains to make sure that she could handle the role. So while I can see cause for concern in the abstract, I think the outcry over this particular movie, when it sounds like everyone was being pretty responsible about the whole issues, is unwarranted.
IOS Game Center ID: Isotope-X
I know, right?
All through this thread all I could think about was that one Lifetime thing I saw where this poor little southern girl keeps getting abused (sexually and like beaten and stuff) by her drunken father or something. It was horrible. And then at the end it talked about how it was a true story and stuff. After that and A Time to Kill (which I've only read but the book description was bad enough to make me squirm) I don't think I have any desire to see this movie. However, I don't feel it should be censored, just that I have no personal desire to see it.
This, and well, porn -- so it was the porno industry which challenged the law all the way to the Supreme Court in order to get it overturned, so that they could continue producing things like Try-A-Teen #14 and YA: Young & Anal or The Babysitter #22, etc. without non-stop legal harassment. Hollywood actually offered little to no support in the legal battle against the law, as they basically didn't want to deal with the PR of being seen as pro-pedophilia, so really it was the truly distasteful end of the porno industry which is responsible for protecting this type of artistic expression.
The more you know...
I kinda see this going the same way. Big controversy for a bit, then it will all die down, and only be used as a talking point when the fundies need something to harp.
This isn't the first film thats been asked to be banned and it won't stop people from seeing it.
I have seen A Time to Kill, but not Hounddog. I get the sense, though, that the rape scene in Hounddog is more explicit. If I recall correctly, in the first movie, it was only implied, with scenes depicting "before" and "after."
However, considering the subject matter and memorable dialogue of A Time to Kill, the irony is rather rich if the difference in reactions is primarily subconscious racism.
It's a little different for a book. An actual child never has to be a part of it. If you're going to film a movie about a little girl being raped, you either need to use a little girl, or you need to find someone who looks like a little girl. If you can do the latter, awesome. If the former, there are some ethical questions that you need to address.
Isn't this pretty much besides the point at this stage? I mean, the movie is done. It's being shown like, today. Or maybe it was yesterday. She was already exposed to whatever she was exposed to.
Big-boobed women made pacts with Satan before hitting puberty.
Umm... why would that make it beside the point? If they did something wrong, it doesn't stop being wrong just because it already happened.
I'd say in this case it agree that it sounds like it was handled well, but I also agree with ElJeffe that there were/are ethical questions that need to be addressed and considered when making such a movie. It's not all about "OLOL violence is good but sex is bad."
The opposition may be a little misguided in this case, but that doesn't mean that in general this isn't something that should be watched closely.
Whatever. The ACLU just really likes kiddy porn.
go on Xwalk. they basically consider the ACLU and the NAMBLA to be one and the same
It's actually more like emo porn than kiddy porn.
A kiddy snuff-film. Or play.