Reminds me of Sarah Polleys letter to Terry Gilliam last year:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/ycbx5r

Reply

Yes, Dr. Manhattan. I read that one off of Miss Polley's fansite on "Yahoo!". She is still literally shell-shocked by that scene from the beseiged city in "The Adventures of Baron Munchausen". She was only nine at the time! And this happened with a director who was trying to be supportive and diligent for her well-being!

Compare that to Deborah Kampmeier and "Hounddog". Her previous film record, the statements of on-set witnesses and the copies of the original screenplay that they provided (among other factors) all belie the new talking points that have perforce emerged after five months of silence and hiding.

However, even if we were to accept their specious and prevaricating line, there emerges a single, stark fact that they cannot explain away or deny. For the first time (known) in the history of feature films, a child was involved DIRECTLY in the enactment of sex and sexplay, both with adult actors and OTHER children.

Nor can they credibly deny the nudity, real or simulated (indistinguishable under law with children), the "nude" exotic dancing, the foulest kinds of language and the enacted murders (by poisonous snake!) of a father and two children... all directly enacted by cute little Dakota. On a fully lit and fully crewed set. With her own mother (and newly appointed manager!) watching.

Sarah Polley doesn't know how lucky she is! Let's see what this uplifting experience will do to Dakota's psyche over time. And more, what will the effects be on all of those peer-aged fans of her's; directly and indirectly.

Reply

The truth about the movie Hounddog:

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/743411173

Reply

Here's "Lewellen" again! She's been making the rounds of the blogs! By the way, folks, "Lewellen" is also the name of Dakota's drinking, smoking, cursing, nude dancing, murdering (!) and highly promiscuous (!!) character in the movie once known as "Hounddog". The site she provides here is a petition to support the movie. It contains a lot of misleading and duplicitous information, including an out-of-context quote by Tre Benson of Blue Line Radio about the Wilmington D.A.'s dilatory non-investigation of the film. Don't be fooled by this. Instead, let me offer this thread on the same website:

"Demand Justice For Child Sexual Exploitation in Film"
(thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/4768800755) by Robert Lacey.

It's a little more honest and informative. And sign HIS petition! Also, for more precise and in-depth information, try these sites:

1. "Blue Line Radio" (bluelineradio.com/crimeblogs): Tre Benson's the man whose diligence has kept this pathetic and heartbreaking story from being silenced. It was to him that the defecting technicians from the "Hounddog" set came with their testimony and screenplay copies because they trusted his integrity. Check out his blog threads entitled "Stand Up", "Pretending To Be Raped", "Nice Try", "Can I Get A Witness?", "It's Up To You" and "Legal Child Porn".

2. "A Minor Consideration" (minorcon.org): Paul Petersen, a former child actor and child protection advocate, formed this organization primarily for the benefit of child actors past and present. He still resides in Los Angeles. Be sure to read his essays called "Pretending Leads To Reality", "The 'Rape' of Dakota Fanning" and "The Ethics of Show Business Kids" by Canadian columnist Jack Marshall. Few men know more about child actors and the long term effects of their experiences, including links to child stars going back to the silent era!

These sites best present the case of those of us who see the dangers that this movie presents to American children in general and child actors in particular... Dakota included.

Reply

"It was to him that the defecting technicians from the "Hounddog" set came with their testimony and screenplay copies because they trusted his integrity."

NC state law requires anyone who witnessed sexual exploitation to report this to the proper authorities. A radio show is not the proper authorities.

A Minor Consideration" (minorcon.org): Paul Petersen reported she was fully nude and graphically assaulted. This was a LIE. She was wearing a bodysuit the entire time and at no time was she even remotely assaulted. The boy rubs his face against hers and then all that is seen it glimpses of her face during occasional flashes of lightening. At no time was she nude or assaulted. The boy was not filmed on top of her.

The quote from Tre Bensen is exactly as he wrote it. It was investigated and no laws were broken. Dakota has denied all the claims by Steve and says it's nothing but rumors.

The petion site against the movie is full of lies and rumors. This has been proven. At no time was anyone nude on the set during the filmimng of this movie. The name was not changed. The movie is being released in Jan 2007 and is perfectly legal. No legal action will ever be taken because no laws were broken.

Reply

The same old spiel from Lewellen.

First of all, those technicians went to Mr. Benson with their statements and the screenplay copies because they trusted in his integrity to keep their identities secret. "Whistleblowing" brings with it inherent risks. This is especially true if one works in an insular and specialized (and lucrative!) skill... like filmatiion.

Those men had families to support. It was because they ARE decent and loving parents themselves that they took this extraordinary action. They also knew that, as far as local legal authority was concerned, to go there would only risk their livlihoods to no purpose. The District Attorney of Wilmington, with inevitable political ties to the film community in the "Movie Capital of the South", would not have been liable to move against his supporters (and, through them, all of Hollywood) by prosecuting this case.

It is a sad fact of nature that laws are only as good as the willingness of legal authority to uphold it. Eventually, public pressure spawned by those revelations from Mr. Benson, forced that D.A. to "look into" (NOT investigate) the matter. As expected, it was a whitewash job... much like Lewellen's essays!

That those film crewmen did what they did earns them our praise. They did the right thing for their children's sake... and ours.

Reply

There is more duplicity from Lewellen that needs to be pointed out.

First off; the subject of Dakota's nudity. She was first reported as nude because she LOOKED nude during the filming. This was deliberate (it was a sex scene!) and easily mistaken, if true. Body socks, such as the filmmakers allege she wore, are technically (as well as morally AND legally) a state of nudity when applied to a child in a sexual situation. Please see Rob Lacey's website for the full legal aspects. Lewellen is perfectly aware of this.

Lewellen also practices cunning duplicity when she refers to how these perverse scenes were filmed. The final edit (among many so far!) will undoubtedly show little more than she maintains. However, what happened IN THE PROCESS OF THE ORIGINAL FILMING is the reality. That reality is revealed by the film crewmen's statements and the screenplay copies they provided.

The truth is this: Dakota performed a nude (or technically nude!) exotic dance to an Elvis Presley song and was then subjected to a graphic sexual assault scene by an 18 year old "actor". Dakota is 12- playing a 9 year old (called "Lewellen"). This scene went through at least a DOZEN takes.

And this scene is only one of many sexually explicit scenes that was shot on that set. Most, naturally, have since been edited out or revised for content. The premature revelations and resulting public outcry forced their hand. This does not, however, in any way, shape or form, negate the truth of what happened on that set. It does not "edit" the facts of how three child actors (one in particular) were used in a manner usually restricted to the back alleys of Bangkok or the dark corners of the internet.

No legal action has thus far been taken, not because nothing illegal happened, but because even that "look-into" by the Wilmington D.A. was delayed long enough to where the film could be edited down. Connie Jordan, the "investigator", had to admit that what she saw from the filmmakers had been pre-edited.

In other words, they were forewarned in time to hide or destroy the visual evidence.

"Hounddog" is now referred to as "The Untitled Dakota Fanning Project". This occured since it's last (and massive) re-re-edit by The Motion Picture Group, a firm that specializes in such things. The new title, if any, has yet to be announced. Also, a "release" is scheduled at the Sundance Film Festival in late January. To release a "questionable" film at the beginning of a year and/or to release in a "safe" environment like the Sundance is an old, established ploy among moviemakers.

Again, Lewellen is completely aware of all of this.

Reply

"That reality is revealed by the film crewmen's statements"

WHAT STATEMENTS? Tell us EXACTLY what they said?

These crew members were pissed because the production did not pay them because they ran out of money. These crew members did not contact the proper authorities or a creditble media source. They contacted the Bensens who have a history of spreading misleading information and creating controversy. They did not have to give their names to the authorities or to the media. They could easily post their story online on blog sites but haven't. In fact they have tried distance themselves from all the rumors and will never come forward.

The OFFICIAL title is HOUNDDOG. Your wrong again. The name was changed to "Untitled Dakota Fanning Project" while the production negotiated the rights for the music used in the movie. This is not uncommon. It's cheaper to get music rights before the title is finalized and the movie is copyrighted and prepared for release.

It was not re-re-edited. Where is the source for your latest lie? Tell us how you know they did a large amount of editing? You don't know anything about this movie other than what you have read on blog sites. Blog sites full of misleading information and rumors.

Reply

No, Lewellen. It won't play.

The quotes from those crewmen, whom you dismiss by parrotting Deborah Kampmeier's spiel, are posted on Lloyd Grove's original column of July 20th and on Blue Line Radio's Crimeblogs... as I know you're aware. They've been there since this summer. Those men haven't come out of anonymity for the very good reasons that I stated above. For more in-depth, I suggest you access Tre Benson's last posting on Blue Line's "Pretending To Be Raped" thread.

The original title on IMDB was "The Untitled Dakota Fanning Project". That was changed to "Hounddog" that summer and it remained so until about a month ago when it reverted back. This happened after The Motion Picture Group took control of the film from a financially-strapped Full Moon Films for the final editing and marketing. The reason was obvious. The name "Hounddog" had become too well connected with it's on-set depravity.

Now, with their firm commitment from the Sundance organization, they may yet keep the title. After all, it's still likely that the Sundance Film Festival will be it's sole public showing. It'll probably go direct to DVD then, like most of Full Moon's trash-fare.

And yes, it was heavily edited on at least two occasions: Once in August when the spectre of a possible legal investigation loomed large and again, starting in late September, when TMPG took over. Since that sneak preview for reviewers last week, it's almost certain that one last edit is in the works as we speak.

Most of my information comes from public sources or trusted correspondents, Lewellen. Some even comes from the mouths of the offenders themselves. By arranging these sources as to reliability and cross-checking, a picture emerges. It's basic investigatory work, actually. It's just a matter of arranging that information into logical patterns consistant with the flow of events. This is known as "traffic analysis". All this put together- plus "legwork"- is how it's done in the real world.

For fantasy, I suggest you go back to watching "CSI".

Reply

"are posted on Lloyd Grove's original column"

WRONG AGAIN! It was a financial backer that went to Lloyd Groves not a crew member. He was asked to provide more money and wanted a larger percentage of the revenue in return but the director refused.

"on Blue Line Radio's Crimeblogs"

WRONG AGAIN! There has never been a direct statement from a crew member on the blue line site with claims of sexual exploitation. In fact the only post said that nothing illegal took place on the set of Hounddog. You know this is true.

"Those men haven't come out of anonymity for the very good reasons"

NC State Law requires any person that witnessed sexual exlpoitation of a minor to report it to the proper authorities. To this day NOT ONE crew memeber has ever reported that they witnessed anything illegal during the filming of this movie. That's a fact!

"The original title on IMDB was "The Untitled Dakota Fanning Project"

WRONG AGAIN! It was listed as Hounddog during preproduction but was removed in late Sept so they could negotiate the music rights and was returned to Houddog once the rights were secured. This is common.
The script, call sheets, shooting schedules, ect all had Hounddog.

"it's still likely that the Sundance Film Festival will be it's sole public showing."

WRONG AGAIN! It will be at the 22nd Santa Barbara Intl. Film Festival Jan. 25-Feb. 4 2007.

"Once in August when the spectre of a possible legal investigation loomed"

WRONG AGAIN! It was not complete until September and that's when the editing started. The first draft had all the scenes intact before being edited for the final release version. The DA was given the first draft version.

"it's almost certain that one last edit is in the works as we speak."

The movie is complete and will premeir on Monday January 22 at 8:30 pm in Park City, Utah.

"All this put together- plus "legwork"- is how it's done in the real world."

All you know is speculation, rumors, and theories all of which have been proven wrong again and again.

I suggest you go back to watching "X Files"

Reply

"We have several options in various stages of development. Brother Marc has been flown out to LA to meet with William Morris Agency regarding a television project in development, I am currently working on a pilot for NPR and have some interest in a proposal with CourtTV Satellite Radio. We have immediate plans to make a structual change in the current radio show's format and distribution."

Looks like all the publicity created by this Hounddog controversy paid off for the Bensen brothers. A tv project, NPR pilot, CourtTV show, and possibly nation wide distribution of their radio show.

"The Donna Reed Show" needs to be back on one of the TV Land/Nick @ Nite cable channels, or perhaps another "nostalgia" outlet. The "rights" to the DR Show, the first five years, are now in the hands of Donna Reed's adult children (Penny, Tony Jr., Timothy and Mary), and Donna Reed's former-husband/Producer, Tony Owen's widow. The last three years of the show are, I believe, still in the hands of Sony Pictures, which purchased Columbia Pictures/Screen Gems. I'd love to have them on DVD. Let's all wait and watch for developments.

Paul Petersen is cashing in on the publicity he received as well. He is still pimping his books and offers signed pictures on his website. Good for him.

Reply

Since you have such a problem with nude and seminude kids here is a video clip for you:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XNYtWVhxa98

Watch the entire clip. There are numerous semi nude kids, little girls in full frontal breast shots, kids semi nude hugging and kissing. Young semi nude kids forced to act like adults in adult situations. Is this child porno? Did the child star have her career ruined? Did this destroy our country? There is more fleash in this clip than you will ever see in the movie Hounddog.

Reply

I read Sarah Polley's letter and she most certainly is not "shell-shocked." She had a terrible experience making the film, but I don't see her in a mental ward. Hell, she's still in the film industry!

To Mr. Pilling: Why exactly are you so against this film? While I do not doubt your sincerity, I do question your motives.

Reply

Here's another video clip:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=q0pf8aLNvH0

FULLY NUDE AND GRAPHICALLY ASSAULTED ON PRIME TIME NETWORK TELEVISION and yet no one even remembers this movie. Linda Blair is remembered for head spinning role in the Exorcist not for this movie which aired September 10, 1974. To this day, it has remained one of the most controversial films ever aired on American television.

One scene in particular that gained the movie infamy was the rape of Blair's character by the other girls with a toilet plunger handle; this scene had the distinction of being the first all-female rape scene aired on American television. This scene was not glossed over in promotional spots for the movie; Linda Blair's screams as she was being attacked were aired in the promos, with the announcer intoning, "She was born innocent, but that was fourteen years ago!"

The world didn't end, there wasn't a flood of girl on girl rape movies, and she continues to work as an actress to this day.

Reply

Wrong, Lewellen. That "disgruntled back" was an allegation made by Deborah Kampmeier in her "Premiere" magazine interview. I've read the man's statement to Lloyd Grove in his original column (July 20th), which Grove later backed up on "ShowBiz Tonight". There were at least two other statements since then, both posted on Blue Line's Crimeblogs that backed up that testimony. You know THIS is true.

The original title I saw on IMDB was the "Untitled". The earlier tests, in the 9-10 years of effort, were indeed under the title "Hounddog". In that you are correct. And thanks for the heads-up on the Santa Barbara Film Festival. I'll be sure to research that development.

You are wrong, however, about that "first draft" to the Wilmington D.A.'s office. Connie Jordan had to admit that she saw an edited version. The editing started in August, as it would have anyway, but was no doubt accelerated by the fallout following the surprise early revelations from Lloyd Grove and Tre Benson. That they COMPLETED the first edit in September, when the so-called investigation finally took place and just prior to their arrangement with The Motion Picture Group (September 22nd), is obvious. You're trying to split hairs here.

No, Lewellen. I have not been proved wrong. If only! No one, in fact, wishes more than I that I HAD been able to prove the story wrong myself. I was Dakota's supporter and defender on the internet prior to this. I was charmed by her personality and her success story and, like others, held her up as a good example to her peers.

No one, Lewellen, was more devastated than I when the story behind "Hounddog" emerged. And no one, even now, wishes more that I could tell everyone that it was all a terrible mistake... that no children were sexually exploited, that "Hounddog" was a clean and uplifting film, that Dakota remains worthy of the love and support she once knew from millions, young and old alike, that...

But the evidence consistently points in the opposite direction. It has done so since that terrible "thunderbolt from the clear blue sky" that fell in the summer of 2006. The firm fact of the matter remains thus: For the first time in the history of American feature films, a child was used DIRECTLY in the performance of sexual scenes with adult actors on a motion picture set. They can edit the final version of the film all they want, but that reality remains.

P.S. Your attempt to smear the names of the Benson brothers and Paul Petersen in what are TRUELY baseless (and base!) allegations only proves to what depths Hollywood-inclined people will sink in order to justify their own amorality. In the words of Tre Benson, "Nice try"!

Reply

Dear Lewellen:

In regard to your later points, may I remind you that I specified "feature films". That child porn is still rampant on other venues, including the internet, is just another terrible fact in the ongoing cultural war that targets children by heartless exploiters the world over. Now we face the spectre of this sort of thing being legitimized and unleashed into the mainstream. As I have said (and as you have read me say on Crimeblogs) this DOES threaten our children and, with them, the survival of our nation and civilization. It has slowly and in increments advanced in the popular culture until, now, we finally come to something like "Hounddog".

"Hounddog" had to happen. And from it, other efforts like it (and worse) will spring into the culture unless firmly opposed. Children have been used in sexually explicit Hollywood films before... but never DIRECTLY. That they have been used so in ANY venue, be it feature films or pornography of the most horrific order, is a terrible tragedy. IT DOES NOT LEGITIMIZE "HOUNDDOG". It is an ongoing source of shame, not justification.

I might also point out that Linda Blair (along with Jodie Foster and Brooke Shields) had emotional problems resulting from their infamous experiences as child actresses. Even though "shielded" from the more graphic aspects of their roles, the mental scars remained. You can't insulate impressionable children, actors or not, from their roles or the context of those roles.

Once again, I quote the words of Lukas Haas from "Witness": "How can you say your lines and do your job if you don't know what's going on?".

You can't, Lewellen. Nor can you erase the consequences to their mental states and adult outlooks- nor can you eliminate the trauma to the children who will watch those films- nor can you stop the inevitable outcome of this to society and future generations that will result when those children grow up so affected.

For their sake- and ours- it must stop now. If "Hounddog" marks the point where, at long last, we "dig in our heels", then so be it. It should have happened long ago. That so many adults (myself included!) have been "asleep at the wheel" while this threat to our children grew and prospered is our shame, too. To fail to act now would only compound it.

For the sake of the children who have already been exploited, molested and traumatized- and for those who WILL be in the future because of it- firm and relentless action must be taken.

Reply

Dear Sam:

I think you missed the point of Sarah Polley's letter to Terry Gilliam. She was not castigating him. She wrote to him because he was making another movie with child actors and she wanted him to know that traumas can occur to them more easily than he might have been aware. You might recall that Gilliam was shocked to learn that she had experienced bad and long-term reactions from scenes that he had taken pains to make safe for her.

Indeed, what she suffered from is a mild, but definite form of stress disorder commonly known to veterans as "shell-shock". Gilliam, being a decent man at heart, was understandably upset and promised to take greater care in his new project. I give Miss Polley every credit for the kind manner in which she presented her case to her old friend and mentor and to Mr. Gilliam for his warmth and heeding. May other filmmakers take note!

Reply

No where in the Groves story did it say anything about a crew member and he has never claimed that he talked to any crew members. There has NOT been a statement on the blue line site from a crew member claiming to have witnessed sexual exploitation. If so I missed that so prove it. The only statements I read were from crew members that stated that NOTHING illegal was filmed but they were still upset about the way "they" were treated and the fact many did not get paid.

The DA saw the first draft of the complied scenes AFTER the film was processed an edited into movie form. Let's not forget this was a low budget movie with limited resources so they didn't waste a lot of film. The editing started in Sept after the dac and 35mm film were processed.

It was listed on IMDB as Hounddog up until Sept when the name was changed to "Untitled" and then changed back to Hounddog once the music rights were secured. This is common with most movies. They often change the working title several times until the final version is ready for screening. It had nothing to do with MPG. They would have done it this way regardless of who provided financing.

"But the evidence consistently points in the opposite direction."

No it does not. The evidence points to the fact that a lot of people were wrong about what occured during the filming of the movie and that a lot of rumors were spread in an attempt to paint a picture that Dakota was forced to act out some kind of child porn movie which is not the case.

Baseless? Did you know anything about the Bensens prior to this? Did anyone? They created the show, website, blogsites, and the concept of a cop/legal based talk show. The first in the country to setup such a concept that has been copied by many others. Do you really think Tre is concerned that he can no longer work as a prop guy on commercials? They now have a possible tv pilot, NPR deal, courttv deal, and plans for a larger distribution of the radio show. You can't buy this kind of publicity. They didn't just present the "evidence" of the story that became the story. They knew all along that no legal action would be taken because the crew members would not be willing to testify in court. This explains why none of them went directly to the DA or to the media. Do you really think they would bring charges against the director or parents without witnesses or people willing to testify in court? Not much of a trial. If it wasn't for this movie they would still be unkowns with a little two bit radio show and a few thousand regular listeners in a small southern town. Petersen jumped onto the badwagon to make a name for himself as well. Up until now no one took him serious. Look at all the publicity he is getting.

Reply

From the Wilmington Star News Jan 9, 2007:

The dark veil of mystery over a locally made film will be lifted next week. Hounddog, or "the untitled Dakota Fanning film," (both working titles) will premiere at this year's Sundance Film Festival, a renowned annual showcase for American and international independent films.

"We were a last-minute addition, and they allowed us to get in with a rough cut," said co-producer Kelly Tenney of Castle Hayne.

The family is poor, Tenney said, and the neighbors down the road are rich. Lewellen is young and people use her. In spite of all this, she finds something that allows her to remain strong.

She finds release through playing in the woods with her friend, Buddy, played by Cody Hanford (Walk the Line), and singing Elvis Presley songs. "The music uplifts her, it gives her a reason to live," Tenney said.

During post-production, rumors began circulating in chat rooms and on Internet sites about the rape's graphic details caught on film and possible legal actions taken against producers for filming a minor in a sexual context.

Tenney, however, said those people have never seen the film, and said the rape is not what the script is about.

"It's only 1/32nd of the film," he said. "It's something that happens and, unfortunately, it happens to children . … It's important to get the message out, and the only way to stop it is to show it."

Rumors about crew members walking off the set during the filming of the rape scene were not accurate, Tenney said. "One crew member came to me and said because he had children, he has two daughters, that he couldn't watch it," he said. "It was one person and I understood. It's a delicate line between art and reality."

As for casting an actual 12-year-old to portray the rape scene, Tenney said Fanning did better than most adults he's worked with. He was particularly impressed with how she could snap in and out of character with ease.

"She was spectacular. She was one of the best actresses I've ever worked with," he said.

Tenney also emphasized the talent of the crew. More than 90 percent of Hounddog's behind-the-scenes workers were from the Wilmington area, he said, and were totally committed to the project.

"It was a pretty tough film," he said. "It was low budget; no budget, sometimes."

Reply

Dear Lewellen:

If you missed all that on Blue Line's blogsites, then I suggest you DO read further. Frankly, I don't have the time to do your research, such as it is, for you. However, by attempting to dismiss their statements and the screenplay as the product of "disgruntled workers", you only reveal your ongoing strategy to be a well-worn political one: "Attack the messenger, not the message".

I'm sure we're all well aware that "Hounddog" is a low-budget "indie" film... like all of Full Moon Films' depraved prior efforts. $4.5 million, in fact. It was also plagued for nearly ten years by one pullout after another of financial backers (Berlinole and Cineric among the known ones), culminating in one that occured during the shooting itself! The final and emergency increment was arranged through Lawrence Robins, a shady New York investor and a friend of the father of Full Moon production staffer Jen Gatien. That final investor is said (though unconfirmed) to be Joe Francis, a man described as an "underage virgin rape video mogul".

Sweet. Thanks for making a case point for me.

As to not wasting film... I'm sure that if prison was the alternative, they would have been prepared to waste (or hide) quite a bit! And as to why you spend so much time on the title... why do you belabor such a minor point? It's likely that TMPG reverted it to "Untitled" while overhauling the film, as I said.

And, once again, by accusing Paul Petersen and the Bensons of "publicity hounding", you are just attacking the messengers. They have long been providing a community service... and a valuable one. If this "publicity" furthers the efforts in child protection and advocacy, or blocks the ongoing sexualization of children in the culture by bringing attention to the problem (something that cinematic lewdness can and will never do), then I wish them every success.

Reply