Oh No Dakota!
So, I just got done saying that Dakota Fanning was a great actress with all sorts of potential, and what does she go do but star as a 12 year old who explores her sexuality, and then has it unwillingly explored. What were her parents thinking? Oh yeah, "We can make some money. Let's sell our innocent minor to the movie God's as they have her tramp around in her underwear and get raped."
I have less hope for her now than I did a month ago.
I have less hope for her now than I did a month ago.
posted by Anonymous at 10:22 AM
33 Comments:
I didn't think Charlotte's Web was that bad.
If you're joking, pardon my inability to realize it, but I'm referring to a release at Sundance called "Hounddog"
I really don't think that anybody can comment on a film as supposedly inflammatory as Hounddog without having seen it. Having said that, it sounds more like a portrayal of an abuse victim than anything else to me.
i know nothing about Hounddog, but i do know that Dakota Fanning is by far the best child actor out there today, and i wouldn't be so quick to lose all faith in her, Hession. that being said, what you said the premise of Hounddog is makes me squirm in my seat and visualize little fluffy bunnies. sex with children in NOT ground that really needs to be covered.
I'm a little surprised nobody's heard of it yet. It's all over the news.
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/0125074hounddog1.html
While I agree that child rape is an extremely uncomfortable concept, it never the less is part of the film "Hounddog". From what I have read the scene was handled very discreetly, skeleton crew on the set, and no nudity, just a body suit that give the illusion of nudity. Hessionm have you read any of the interviews they have done with Dakota, she is defending the film itself and telling people to stop attacking her parents for letting her do it. Again Child rpae is a horrible thing that unfortunately occurs and I pray to God that it stops happening.
It may make you uncomfortable to watch it, but it is part of a story and should not be left out just because it is going to make someone uncomfortable.
Another point, there are movies about the holocaust, which is something atrocious as well, but that does not seem to cause as much uproar as this did. There is still the uncomfortable feeling that you know there is something horrible going on you just cannot see it, what is the difference in this?
Or the movie "Radio Flyer" which was about child abuse that a child suffers. I don't remember any decrying Elijah Wood's parents for their permission to let their son act beaten.
hang on a sec. obviously, first reactions are not always accurate.
Hession's comment was the first i had heard of Hounddog, but i know have read a little more about it, and it seems to me that it's just a movie about an abuse victim and the psychological journey she takes. i originally thought it just gave a 12 year-old exploring her sexuality ending in a rape as some sick sort of titillation, but the movie seems to be much more organic and emotionally-based than it initially sounded. if it does a little to expose rape of a minor for what it really is, that's a good thing. and SP is right about the Holocaust corollary. should we not make movie about a thing simply because a certain demographic would rather not be faced with it?
another issue is that a child (Fanning) had to go through a rape, even if it's just a simulation, and the scarring that can cause. but it sounds to me like that issue was handled with as much conscious and sensitivity as possible, with much care taken to ensure that the rape scene not be seen as pornographic or exploitive to Fanning. i think the wrong people got their hands on information that was incomplete or inaccurate in the wrong way.
I agree with Particle Man. It can be very emotion to act out a rape scene. As someone who has acted as the victim during a rape scene, it can be very emotional and scary, but when handled with delicacy the actor/actress can act out the scene without feeling exploited.
HOWEVER, I have to point out that Hounddog might just be a piece of crap. The director is having a LOT of trouble finding a distributor, and the imdb rating isn't so hot. But, I'll wait to see if it has anything close to a decent rating on the good ol' Tomato-o-meter before I investigate further.
I don't necessarily think that Fanning's parents' actions, or Fanning's own personal choice to play the role makes or breaks her as a "good" actress. There have been films and characters that I've hated, but at the end of the day, sometimes I still look back and admit that he/she put on a terrific performance.
Some examples: Tom Cruise. I don't think I need to mention anything about his personal life, because it's hard not to know. But whether I want to or not, he's currently one of the best if not the best at what he does.
And I think I remember Jack Nicholson's "character" being called into question once before...
Well, they didn't do it for the money, that's for sure....she was only paid scale for this, which isn't much compared to her usual pricetag.
As Particle Man said, even though he doesn't agree with me about this, "a child (Fanning) had to go through a rape, even if it's just a simulation."
He then says,
"But it sounds to me like that issue was handled with as much conscious and sensitivity as possible."
Which is the sentiment most of you appear to have. But in my book, there is no way to handle this "sensatively" or appropriately. It is inappropriate and unnecessary to involve a minor in this, period.
Why do we need to make a movie with a child actress about rape in order to deal with the sensative, difficult reality of rape? We don't. There are other ways to deal with that issue that don't involve ruining a little girl.
As an addendum:
Can someone explain to me how this movie contributes positively to America's need to deal with the reality of child rape in a way that other forms of dealing with it cannot?
Well, to start, I think I can safely say that there will be a heck of a lot more people going to see a movie that has a rape theme than there will be people lining up to go to local informational sessions about rape.
You're right, hession, in saying that we don't HAVE to use film to convey any theme. But it tends to be pretty effective.
Now, I haven't seen the film, so I can't say whether this one will be or not. But it could be.
And I think that the fact that a little girl has been "ruined" is debateable as well.
I think the fact of the matter here is that this issue is as gray as can be. While most of us would probably think twice before allowing our children to act out a rape scene, we'd probably also factor in a particular child's wisdom and maturity. We don't know much about Dakota's wisdom or maturity, so we can only speculate.
Similarly, as parents, we'd probably have concerns about how the scene was shot and how much our child was exposed to, as well as the overall message of the movie and its efficacy in delivering said message. We have some clue here, but again it's a matter pretty much shrouded in mystery to us.
What I'm getting at is that none of us have the right, with the information at hand, to pronounce any of the Fannings' actions as right or wrong. They know the details and we do not. We can speculate, pontificate, or remonstrate, but in the end we just don't know.
At the generic level, and regardless of any of this incidents particular details:
Denial doesn't solve problems; confrontation does. Maybe we don't like what we see, but being as it does happen there is no use denying it.
I would therefore go the other way around: I would applaud the people wishing to being this problem up to people's agendas.
(sorry for the typing erros; that's what you get when you add comments at the office)
i know a little about Dakota's wisdom and maturity, and i can say that it's very high indeed. she is an incredible smart, competent, and sagacious little girl, and i highly doubt that she would be "ruined" by participating in simulation of a rape. i don't know for certain, but i can say with confidence that Dakota knew what she was getting into when she elected to do this. i think her parents did, too, and i imagine their decision to let her do it was even harder than Dakota's.
now, Hession, think about the good it will do the general public to see this movie, assuming it is done right. that same general public probably won't take advantage of the "other ways" you mentioned, but they will go see a movie. movies are really the most accessible medium we have, which is why we have filmmakers getting up on their soapboxes so often. and you're argument about "ruining one little girl" is not valid, for the reason's i mentioned before. so really, everybody wins.
this is, of course, all being said by someone who has not seen the movie, so i may end up being completely wrong.
I'm copying someone's quote from aintitcool news talkback:
Triumph Poop! says,
"But the movie IS creepy for other reasons too. In quite a few reports I've read online today -- now that HOUNDDOG has officially been screened -- many note that the rape scene IS undeniably unsettling. And while some female reviewers have tried to salvage the situation by arguing the movie should be looked at more as a "female coming of age tale" (and thus female moviegoers should embrace it), on the flip side several male reviewers have simply noted (in short) "No, Fanning just comes off as a sexual tart looking for it, and to be honest it's just creepy." In particular reviewers have also noted (now that the movie has been seen) just how much Fanning runs around in either her underwear or is skimpily dressed, which means coupled with the rape this whole thing becomes a pedophile's best wet dream -- almost like it's a training film."
He sums up my concerns well, and my own research with reading reviews from screeners has confirmed that this is pretty accurate. This movie is not about raising awareness of child rape, it is about something else...something very, very, very, VERY, VERY unsettling to see Hollypoop tread down this path. And I say Hollypoop because the Sundance Kid allowed it into his show.
So Hession are you saying that if Fanning's character was not "looking for it" you might not disagree with the movie as much as you do?
That seems valid to me Hession. However, I have read differing reviews from your opinion and I think this may come down people's mindset when they see the movie. If you are going in expecting to see a movie that is "training for pedophiles" that is what you are going to see. I think it would be best that those who see this movie know it will be uncomfortable but also keep their minds open to the story.
Honestly, I don't know how worthwhile this discussion is, since none of us have seen the film.
However, I will get back to what I thought was the initial question: does this make Dakota Fanning any less of a "good" actress? Or damage her potential to become one?
frankly, not really. even if Hounddog completely sucks, there is still Man On Fire, War of the Worlds, I Am Sam, and Nine Lives, all movies she was excellent in. everybody has some turkeys, though Dakota may have already filled her turkey quota with Cat in the Hat...
But Hollywood had nothing to do with it! It's an independent film, that doesn't even have a distributor as of now. Sundance is the world's largest festival/competition of INDEPENDENT films. And there are actors who are way, way more Hollywood than Redford.
To say that "Hollypoop", in your scat-obsessed parlance, was responsible for Hounddog is simply not true.
STORMY: "So Hession are you saying that if Fanning's character was not "looking for it" you might not disagree with the movie as much as you do?"
The what-if's really just distract from the reality. The reality of a rape being inappropriate to portray by a 12 year old remains, whether that fact changes or not. Where that fact comes in to play is this: The main support given for having this movie made is to "raise awareness" yadada...but I think the fact that this movie is coming across as something quite different suggests at least that this defense is not adequate. It also affirms my concern for her as an actor, as she is aparently already acting in a disheartening sexual manner at this age.
Well, finally we've gotten down to the root of the debate--and, in a sense, the root of all our debates.
Hession writes: "The reality of a rape being inappropriate to portray by a 12 year old remains, whether that fact changes or not."
So, clearly, his point of view is that it's always inappropriate for a 12-year-old to be a part of a rape scene.
Several others, however, have made the case that it depends on the factors involved: how is the scene shot? is it done to educate or titillate? how mature is the 12-year-old in question?
It shouldn't be surprising that these two responses represent the two main schools of moral reasoning: deontological, wherein actions are right or wrong regardless of their purpose or consequence, and utilitarian, where actions are judged based on their intentions or the consequences they create.
I don't know where that leaves us, exactly, but it's interesting to note.
A deontological action is generally the most utilitarian, because ultimately, what's right is what's best and what's wrong is not.
Fair point, but it assumes that one can know what is right deontologically. The deontological vs. utilitarian argument isn't about right vs. best. Both sides will understandably feel the conclusions they come to are both right and best. It's a question of how one comes to those moral conclusions. Basically, are rules constant? Or do they depend on the situation?
DR WORM: " The deontological vs. utilitarian argument isn't about right vs. best. Both sides will understandably feel the conclusions they come to are both right and best. It's a question of how one comes to those moral conclusions. Basically, are rules constant? Or do they depend on the situation?"
I'm right. You're wrong :)
I think it's safe to say NOBODY on this board can speak about the film with any authority whatsoever, unless
somebody went to Sundance, and didn't tell me. :P
I actually talked to somebody today at the Coolidge Corner theater who was at Sundance, and while they didn't see it themselves, they talked to a lot of people who did, and the general consensus seems to be that:
-The film was a big disappointment
-The "sexual" material was blown wayyyyyyyy out of proportion by the press.
Well...I haven't seen it, but I've read part of the script. And I don't take anything the press says at face value. I rely more on the opinions of people who have seen the movie and are giving their subjective sense of it.
Post a Comment
<< Home