Dakota Fanning 'Rape Scene' Controversy
- Thread starter Prada's Meadow
- Start date
I was under the impression that the rape scene was pretty graphic, but now I'm not sure. I think it would have been a better decision to hire a younger looking adult to play the role. Alternatively, maybe they could have used body doubles during the rape scene.
YouTube - Dakota Fanning - Showbiz Tonight - Discussion on rape scene
This is Showbiz Tonight talking about the movie.
This is Showbiz Tonight talking about the movie.
From Fox News
Dakota Rape Movie: No Buyers
"Hounddog," the simply awful movie in which 12-year-old Dakota Fannings character is raped, has no buyers.
"No one wants it after the terrible reviews," one distributor told me, just as we were sitting down to see another disaster, J.P. Schaefers "Chapter 27."
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 collectors item. Same thing for "Chapter 27," from which many fled before it ended in the two audiences that have seen it.
Meanwhile, the producers of "Hounddog" trotted out Fanning yesterday to defend the film in places like USA Today and at another press conference.
Its come to that, apparently. The people who should be answering questions, however, are Fannings parents, and the parents of the other children in the film.
Indeed, 12-year-old Cody Hanford, who plays Fannings 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 Fannings into a barn and then watches as shes raped. Hanford and Fanning also have numerous kissing scenes, some in which theyre half-dressed.
Yesterday, Varietys Todd McCarthy was one of several reviewers who echoed my complaints about the hoary plot, terrible dialogue and clichés marking every scene.
With the above-mentioned distributors out, its unlikely now that any major buyer will take "Hounddog." And thats just as well, considering that its release is sure to spark more outrage, protests and calls for investigations.
The strange part is that, in the long run, the movie itself is only offensive because its so bad. The real culprits arent the filmmakers, but the parents of the young actors.
Yesterday I spoke to Joy Pervis, the Atlanta agent who discovered Dakota and her sister, Elle. Shes since signed Cody and Isabelle Fuhrmann, the other child in the film.
Pervis told me shes basically in favor of the film and trusts the Fannings judgment. "Theyre a good Christian family," she said.
But plenty of publicists whove worked on movies with either Fanning girl have stories about their mother, Joy
.
"Shes a real stage mother," one of them said at the screening. "The negotiations just go on and on."
But back to "Hounddog." Since I am one of the few whove actually seen it, let me explain something important. There is no point that I can find to the childs rape.
Once it happens, its never discussed. The culprit is never accused or apprehended. The child never tells her story to anyone. Theres no great moment of revelation that could possibly help someone whos watching the film. Its 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 its no more bizarre than using Dakota Fanning as the public defender of the indefensible.
Dakota Rape Movie: No Buyers
"Hounddog," the simply awful movie in which 12-year-old Dakota Fannings character is raped, has no buyers.
"No one wants it after the terrible reviews," one distributor told me, just as we were sitting down to see another disaster, J.P. Schaefers "Chapter 27."
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 collectors item. Same thing for "Chapter 27," from which many fled before it ended in the two audiences that have seen it.
Meanwhile, the producers of "Hounddog" trotted out Fanning yesterday to defend the film in places like USA Today and at another press conference.
Its come to that, apparently. The people who should be answering questions, however, are Fannings parents, and the parents of the other children in the film.
Indeed, 12-year-old Cody Hanford, who plays Fannings 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 Fannings into a barn and then watches as shes raped. Hanford and Fanning also have numerous kissing scenes, some in which theyre half-dressed.
Yesterday, Varietys Todd McCarthy was one of several reviewers who echoed my complaints about the hoary plot, terrible dialogue and clichés marking every scene.
With the above-mentioned distributors out, its unlikely now that any major buyer will take "Hounddog." And thats just as well, considering that its release is sure to spark more outrage, protests and calls for investigations.
The strange part is that, in the long run, the movie itself is only offensive because its so bad. The real culprits arent the filmmakers, but the parents of the young actors.
Yesterday I spoke to Joy Pervis, the Atlanta agent who discovered Dakota and her sister, Elle. Shes since signed Cody and Isabelle Fuhrmann, the other child in the film.
Pervis told me shes basically in favor of the film and trusts the Fannings judgment. "Theyre a good Christian family," she said.
But plenty of publicists whove worked on movies with either Fanning girl have stories about their mother, Joy
.
"Shes a real stage mother," one of them said at the screening. "The negotiations just go on and on."
But back to "Hounddog." Since I am one of the few whove actually seen it, let me explain something important. There is no point that I can find to the childs rape.
Once it happens, its never discussed. The culprit is never accused or apprehended. The child never tells her story to anyone. Theres no great moment of revelation that could possibly help someone whos watching the film. Its 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 its no more bizarre than using Dakota Fanning as the public defender of the indefensible.
I have no interest whatsoever in seeing this movie. I have a very difficult time with the issue of rape scenes in movies. I especially have a hard time with it when children are involved.
I realize that she is considered to be a very good actress but personally, I think her parents should have passed over this script. There is no way in the world I would let my child participate in a rape scene. There are plenty other good roles out there for her to choose from.
I realize that she is considered to be a very good actress but personally, I think her parents should have passed over this script. There is no way in the world I would let my child participate in a rape scene. There are plenty other good roles out there for her to choose from.
The scene was not even graphic she had her cloths on the whole time. Dakota is a great actress and It was her choice to play the role. Why do people care so much about this fake scening but wen it happens to women and children everyday..paleasseee
I didn't realize she was 13. I thought she was a lot younger.
At her age, I think she can make her own decisions about what parts are right for her.
At her age, I think she can make her own decisions about what parts are right for her.
People Magazine's take on the movie:
Perhaps the most talked-about Sundance entry is a tedious southern gothic yarn starring 12-year-old Dakota Fanning. Even before its debut, the film was generating heat over a scene in which Fanning's character is raped by an older boy. Fear not, this isn't a cheap exploitation: The rape scene is handled with restraint, and the movie deals with the topic of sexual assault in a sensitive manner.
Perhaps the most talked-about Sundance entry is a tedious southern gothic yarn starring 12-year-old Dakota Fanning. Even before its debut, the film was generating heat over a scene in which Fanning's character is raped by an older boy. Fear not, this isn't a cheap exploitation: The rape scene is handled with restraint, and the movie deals with the topic of sexual assault in a sensitive manner.
"I just [handled] it like every other scene," says Fanning of a rape scene in Hound Dog. "I wasn't going through any of that - it was my character."
I wish I could remember where I read this, maybe someone here read it too..but the most horrifying thing to me is that when they were doing their research on this scene they showed it to a group of men and then a seperate group of women. The majority of men said that she was raped because she was "seductive" and the majority of the women said she was victimized, plain and simple. I have no idea what type of people were in these focus groups or how many, but it scares me that the men still had the idea that somehow, it is the girl's fault
I do not see a problem with it. If she is comfortable and her parents will let her do it, then fine by me. She's and actress, and she knows her job is to become someone she isnt. Besides, 12 years old is 6th grade? I had sex ed then i believe. Anyhow, kids play many violent parts in plenty of other movies and they play being kidnapped and etc. I can understand others' viewpoints regarding this, but if you disagree then skip that scene or do not watch the movie altogether.
That has more to do with prevailing culture than any movie.
Some have suggested that pedophiles might get ideas from this movie, and I can't really argue with that. Pedophiles get ideas from Heidi, brochures for day care centers, and the JC Penney catalog.
That has to do with the nature of the illness that is pedophilia, not people who sell DVDs of Shirley Temple movies or produce pamphlets that show fully clothed children fingerpainting and playing T-ball. Or any scene in this particular movie.