I looove the movies, always have, always will, HOWEVER
I wonder what is happening here, cheap exploitation? I won't be seeing Houndog. I can pick up the newspaper and read about 12 year olds getting raped in real life. I see movies for entertainment and this subject isn't entertaining. I can't imagine anyone thinking that this would be of interest to the adverage movie going public and I don't care who is playing the part. Is this really the kind of role Dakota needs to further her career? People already love her and I don't think they are going to accept her in this role. Kinda like having your own child victimized for money!

Reply

Southerner and father of Elvis the most famous entertainer the world has ever seen, Vernon Presley, said, "We were poor, but we were never 'white trash'.
How Kim Voynar can use the 'white trash term so freely is rather disconcerting. Surely like the n-word the term should have been washed from the mouths of all Americans.
Anyone who has travelled the southern states such as Mississippi has seen the 'third world' existing in today in the USA.

The movie "To Kill A Mocking Bird" starring Gregory Peck gave the world a taste of the region and the subject matter of "HoundDog".

It appears the only saving grace for this movie is the unique voice of Elvis Presley, and the knowledge Dakota Fanning will surely be catapulted into the major league as a seasoned actress.
After all she had already endured Aliens, in "War of the Worlds". The present war of the words concerning will be childsplay for her.
At least the serious subject matter of child rape will get immense coverage now. In that case the movie may just rise a little above it's cliches.

http://irelandtoo.blogspot.com

Reply

As a victim of child sexual abuse, I would not have placed my child in such a position personally, however it has already been done. Now my position would be, go out and see it, take people with you. I'm so tired of people saying (About my abuse, and all sexual abuse in general) "get over it". My sister in law struggles with a drug addiction problem that stemmed from a rape, and she's told again and again as well "get over it, so someone touched you". Now I challenge all of America to go sit there and endure the rape and mistreatment of an innocent child, then walk away and get over it. Go ahead and try to live your life, as it was before you witnessed such a thing. Then as the scenes replay in your memmory, and the feelings you felt as you watched it sneek up on you from time to time, remember this- you were only a witness to it you didn't even expieriece it personaly, and look at how it can shake your soul. Now live your life and never get over it. Remember everyday, that it is happening, again and again.

Reply

yea, I saw it at sundance too. I got over it. It was alright, although one thing you missed was the actual cinematography. It did give you that whole "shit-hole" feeling.

Reply

With reference to the comment made by Maurice Colgan regarding the use of the word "white trash" being used in reference to the feature film HounDog, I can definitely relate to this terminology.

I was born and raised in Oklahoma... "Okies" as we are referred to...and my maternal grandparents, who raised my sister, brother and myself constantly used this term over and over in my upbringing.

In Oklahoma City there was an area we visited frequently referred to as "Shanty Town". My paternal grandparents lived on the outskirts "wrong side of the tracks,...so to speak..." As was referred to in the review of this film, houses in disrepair, dirt roads, old cars left in front yards etc. I recall many visits to "Shanty Town" in my youth with my brother and sister, seeing children in tattered clothing, no coats for winter, torn shoes etc. I just recall going back to our "middle class" home thankful for the bedroom I shared with my sister and the home my grandparents and mother provided my brother, sister and myself. Of course, this was in the late 1940's and 1950's when there were three classes "upper", "middle" &"lower"....No one really wanted to put a name on "the poorest of the poor"....They were just "white trash" and lived in Shanty Town.

Many years later Urban Development came into the city and decided this was "bad for the State" and more or less mowed the area down. I always wondered where those poor people went to live, and now everytime I see a "homeless individual", I know.

You can go to Anytown, USA and find what used to be referred to as "white trash" and another "Shanty Town"...All we've done is change the terminology!

Reply

Dear Kim:

That's all assuming she HAS a career in the wake of the Sundance fiasco. It needs to be pointed out that the prime issue with "Hounddog" is not how the heavily re-edited (at least three times!) final version turned out... disturbing as it was. The greatest point of contention is how it was filmed. What happened on that set to three child actors?

Since July, there has been available the original screenplay and the statements of the film crewmen who provided it, having been horrified at what they saw. "Skin-on-skin" did occur. Children were used on that set in a manner just short of full-blown child pornography.

And, if the filmmakers are not held accountable, it's only a matter of time before someone tries again. "Hounddog" is a threat to every child in the country; morally and physically.

Reply

Steven - I've heard about these mysterious unnamed crew members. Do you have a link or more information concerning them? From what I've read, nothing like that ever happened on set.

As for the actual film itself, a few links you may find interesting:

Utah AG: Movie rape doesn't break porn law

http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/view.php?StoryID=20070126-025626-3875r


Utah, N.C. prosecutors find no crimes committed with "Hounddog"

http://dwb.newsobserver.com/news/ncwire_news/story/3020808p-9440325c.html


Rape, Abuse and Incest National Network appalauds Hounddog (last paragraph of article)

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/movies/la-et-dakota10jan10,1,1248935.story?track=crosspromo&coll=la-headlines-entnews&ctrack=1&cset=true


Children's Rights Organization First Star Speaks out in Defense of Dakota Fanning

http://digital50.com/news/items/BW/2001/07/14/20070129006014/childrens-rights-organization-first-star-speaks-out-in-defense-of-dakota-fanning.html

Reply

Dear Otter:

You will note that First Star, first and foremost, is a left-wing lobbying group. You don't find that out, naturally enough, until the last part of the last paragraph where it's "delicately" revealed. Groups like this have long used emotional issues (like "It's for the chldren"!) as a foot-in-the-door tactic for a broader social agenda. An agenda, I might add, that is hardly pro-family.

Also note that Samuelson makes "liberal" use of many of the same old extenuations for film immorality that we've all heard so often:

1. "bravely taken on a difficult role": The Hollywood definition of "bravery" is to do something so grossly despicable as to make even the most hardened of critics cringe! Or, as they say, "All publicity is good publicity!" They may be wrong here!

2. "no nudity": Even if, as the filmmakers contend, the children wore body socks in the sex scenes, it's still irrelevant. Technically, morally and legally, it's still considered nudity.

3. "Only the face and hands of the actress are shown": Sure. Now they are. In the final, much edited version. This deliberately ignores the prime question; that of what was done with those three children in the process of filming.

4. "positive change by focussing on social issues": In lib-speak, this means forwarding a social agenda by whatever means necessary. This includes drawing on the film denegration of a little girl and trying to pass it off as something "positive".

5. "It'll raise awareness": You always find that one somewhere! It's still the prime mantra for excusing "art films". An art film is defined thus: Pornography and degeneracy wrapped in a thin veneer of social commentary, thus providing it with a false and perfidious alibi.

(continued)

Reply

(continued)

I am not familiar with the nature of the "Rape, Abuse and Incest Network", although I've heard of them. I was unable to access the story you mentioned. However, I would venture to predict that my comments above would pretty well hold for them. No organization built on a moral basis could condone "Hounddog".

As for the North Carolina D.A., I can tell you bluntly that this is a classic case of "CYA" in the wake of "Hounddog's" renewed infamy following the Sundance debacle. See my comments dated today on "cinematical.com/2006/12/04/dakota-fanning-speaks-out-on-hounddog/" for a more in-depth review.

The Utah A.G.'s case, however, is something different. And, as with many, it came to me as a great disappointment. Like other liberal reviewers in the past, his main excuse was just another form of the (again!) infamous line of "It'll raise awareness". Something, I'll add here, that any law enforcement veteran can tell you is utter hogwash. The truth is just the opposite.

Of course, he has the excuse that the film in it's final form, as shown in the State of Utah was, however morally repugnant, still barely legal. The content of the raw footage is not in his purview. It was, however, in that of the Wilmington District Attorney (Ben David) and their own State Attorney General (Roy Cooper). Unfortunately, these people are politicians first and public protectors a distant second.

They have all evaded a public duty and trust because "Hounddog" was something legally difficult and politically explosive. Now, having come under renewed public scrutiny, they are scrambling to excuse themselves by any deceptive means. As I said in my above referenced posting, it draws a sad parallel to the methods used by "Hounddog's" makers at Sundance when things started to fall apart.

For the best references on this subject, let me recommend the following websites:

1. Blue Line Radio (bluelineradio.com) Click "crimeblogs" for Tre Benson's commentary and responses. There are eight threads that deal with "Hounddog" along with one containing the original screenplay. "Legal Child Porn" is the best one. Benson is the one that most of the film crewmen came to with their stories, due to his ties with the Wilmington film community, and brought to him the script copies.

2. A Minor Consideration (minorcon.org) You will recognize founder Paul Petersen from his many recent appearances on television. His organization exists for the betterment of the conditions that child actors face today; he himself being a former one. His essays on "Hounddog" are some of the most enlightening to be found.

3. Demand Justice For Child Sexual Exploitation In Films (thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/467880755) Rob Lacey, a local activist in North Carolina, has collected the relevant legal data. He provides commentary from the Christian point of view. Please consider signing his online petition.

P.S. I sent off a detailed message to Mark Shurtleff (the Utah A.G.) last Friday on the subject. I'll post it on my website as soon as I can. In it, I not only point out his misconceptions, but illustrate much of the anti-Hounddog case.

Reply

"You will note that First Star, first and foremost, is a left-wing lobbying group. You don't find that out, naturally enough, until the last part of the last paragraph where it's "delicately" revealed. Groups like this have long used emotional issues (like "It's for the chldren"!) as a foot-in-the-door tactic for a broader social agenda. An agenda, I might add, that is hardly pro-family."

Trashing organizations and people simply because you don't agree with them will get you nowhere. The fact is that these people have actually seen the movie, whereas people like Paul Petersen and you have not. Your claim that First Star has "long used emotional issues (like "It's for the chldren"!) as a foot-in-the-door tactic for a broader social agenda," can just as easily be applied to the likes of Bill Donohue, who actually admitted on CNN that if it hadn't been Dakota Fanning in Hounddog, but rather an unknown 12 year-old actress, he would not have bothered with the movie. Instead of trying to protect actual rape victims or unknown underage actors, these people choose to exploit Dakota's popularity and success to push their own agenda, because they know Dakota's name will get them on shows like Hannity & Colmes and Wolf Blitzer, while using an unknown actor will get them no airtime or publicity.

And at the same time they claim they're doing it all to protect Dakota, an actress whose acting fee is currently $3 million per movie. An actress who has a team of lawyers at her disposal. An actress whose acceptance of a movie role frequently determines whether or not that movie will be made. An actress whose schedule Steven Speilberg actually filmed around in order to get her in War of the Worlds. As for Hounddog, it almost didn't get made because Dakota came close several times to backing out on the production, which was being pushed back due to lack of financial backing, causing Dakota to pass up several other more lucrative movie offers (she did Hounddog for scale, which should tell you something about her desire to do the movie).

Sorry, but there are simply other more worthy causes people like Bill Donohue could devote their time and energy towards. In the end, their crusade against Hounddog will accomplish absolutely nothing, except get their names in the headlines.


"An art film is defined thus: Pornography and degeneracy wrapped in a thin veneer of social commentary, thus providing it with a false and perfidious alibi."

That's just ridiculous.

From Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_film

"However, the term “art film” can be hard to define, because it is often used in a loose or ambiguous fashion. In the United States in the 1960s and 1970s, the term "art film" was often used as a euphemism for racy, nudity-filled Italian and French B-movies, as well as for sexually explicit European films such as I Am Curious (Yellow). In contrast, in Europe during the 1960s, the term "art film" was more associated with "auteur" films and "national cinema" (e.g., German national cinema). In the 2000s, the term “art film” is often used interchangeably with the terms “independent film”, “underground cinema”, “experimental film”, or “auteur film.”

The term "art film" is used in its loosest sense when the location of exhibition, the repertory theater or arthouse cinema, is used to define which films are "art films." With this approach, a broad range of films, such as a 1960s Hitchcock movie, a 1970s experimental underground film, a 1980s European auteur film, and a 1990s US "Independent" film all fall under the rubric of "art film." In 2000, film theorist Robert Stam argued that “art film” was a film genre based on artistic status, in the same way that film genres can be based on aspects of films such as their budgets (blockbuster movies or B-movies) or their star performers (Fred Astaire movies). [3]"

So according to your definiton, Hitchcock's movies are all pornographic and degenerate.


"I am not familiar with the nature of the "Rape, Abuse and Incest Network", although I've heard of them. I was unable to access the story you mentioned. However, I would venture to predict that my comments above would pretty well hold for them. No organization built on a moral basis could condone "Hounddog".

Or you could simply try doing some actual research, rather than trash them simply because you disagree with them about a movie they have seen and you haven't.


"As for the North Carolina D.A., I can tell you bluntly that this is a classic case of "CYA" in the wake of "Hounddog's" renewed infamy following the Sundance debacle. See my comments dated today on "cinematical.com/2006/12/04/dakota-fanning-speaks-out-on-hounddog/" for a more in-depth review.

The Utah A.G.'s case, however, is something different. And, as with many, it came to me as a great disappointment. Like other liberal reviewers in the past, his main excuse was just another form of the (again!) infamous line of "It'll raise awareness". Something, I'll add here, that any law enforcement veteran can tell you is utter hogwash. The truth is just the opposite.

Of course, he has the excuse that the film in it's final form, as shown in the State of Utah was, however morally repugnant, still barely legal. The content of the raw footage is not in his purview. It was, however, in that of the Wilmington District Attorney (Ben David) and their own State Attorney General (Roy Cooper). Unfortunately, these people are politicians first and public protectors a distant second.

They have all evaded a public duty and trust because "Hounddog" was something legally difficult and politically explosive. Now, having come under renewed public scrutiny, they are scrambling to excuse themselves by any deceptive means. As I said in my above referenced posting, it draws a sad parallel to the methods used by "Hounddog's" makers at Sundance when things started to fall apart."

Again, trashing organizations and people simply because you don't agree with them will get you nowhere. Complaints about the movie from people who hadn't seen it were filed. State officials reviewed the movie, and found the complaints to be groundless. End of story. Sorry.


"P.S. I sent off a detailed message to Mark Shurtleff (the Utah A.G.) last Friday on the subject. I'll post it on my website as soon as I can. In it, I not only point out his misconceptions, but illustrate much of the anti-Hounddog case."

Yes, I'm sure he'll appreciate hearing about all his misconceptions about a movie that he has seen but you haven't.

Good luck, because you're going to need it.

Reply

I've been away from here for a long time!

First of all, Otter, I didn't "trash" First Star. I merely pointed out that they had revealed their true nature and motivations by their own rhetoric. I watch and evaluate all groups, primarily, by their deeds. Their words, though- once you get to learn the "language"- can sometimes be no less revealing. You'll discover that in time.

As for Bill Donohue, you attempt in your attack on him to "pull a reverse" and accuse him of your own sins. How Clintonesque! Why do you truely think that he said that, Otter? He was pointing out the fact because Dakota was so celebrated an actress, her starring in "Hounddog" makes that film even more dangerous. Her appeal to her young fanbase (or what's left of it) increases the likelihood of their seeing the movie. It's called "box office".

"Art Film" is simply defined, Otter. It's degeneracy and pornography wrapped in the thin guise of social commentary. That latter provides the "justification". The term has been the butt of grim and sarcastic humor for decades. One recent form of it is now called "Southern Gothic". That's where elitist filmmakers project their deviant concepts onto Christians and the part of the world they hate the worst. "Hounddog" and "Black Snake Moan" (essentially the same film, except for the age group of the leading actresses) are recent examples. Even Hitchcock, in his later career, would have recoiled in disgust.

And lastly; what you refer to as "trashing", I would call a concerned citizen's reprimand for evasion of a sacred duty by a public official. Someone had to. I did.

Reply

Like most people that are posting comments, I have not yet viewed this film.
What concerns me most is the ugly spectacle of censorship being promoted in the name of all Christians that may or may not be offended by seeing this movie.
If you have the feeling that you may be one of those conservative people that might be offended by one of the scenes in this film, stay home, don't spend your money to support the showing of this movie. If enough of the Christian Right agree with you, then you have the ultimate power to remove it from pulbic display by causing it to be unprofitable to run in theaters.
The fact that a "Christian" group could hold the power to determine artistic merit or determine what is appropriate for me to see and hear by their ability to limit free speech and apply their standards of morality and censorship, is more frightening to me than any movie content that I can imagine.

Reply

To Steve. points:
p1. The purpose of the film is to tackle child abuse. The problem IS indeed that to do this you have to come close to the matter. To do so is brave of Dakota.
p2. Body suit does not constitute nudity, neither do panties. "Nudity" is when private parts are visible...period.Everything else is "clothed", maybe inappropriately. In fact, in a good light, it is easy to see that there is clothing there. The only situation hen you mistake it for bare skin is when you don't actually see anything but the body outline, and interpret this as body.

p4. The agenda is that it is allowed to SPEAK about abuse, not commit it. This is a valid point.

p5. Just some shouts, nothing behind.
And yes Awareness IS important. If parent get to drill their daughters "don't undress in front of boys, it'll get ou raped" then already much has been achieved.
p3. NOTHING happened to Dakota and other what wasn't needed for scenes we see.. and for this not much nudity was needed. Seriously, we see more of Lohan in "Parent Trap". And the script, by the way also doesn't require for anything save hand or leg to be bare.

When a girl is shot in the belly and bleeds on screen, like in Pan's Labyrinth, you don't expect they actually cut girl's belly and let it bleed, do you?

ALL filmas are heavily edited, and that means absolutely nothing.

Reply

To Steve. points:
p1. The purpose of the film is to tackle child abuse. The problem IS indeed that to do this you have to come close to the matter. To do so is brave of Dakota.
p2. Body suit does not constitute nudity, neither do panties. "Nudity" is when private parts are visible...period.Everything else is "clothed", maybe inappropriately. In fact, in a good light, it is easy to see that there is clothing there. The only situation hen you mistake it for bare skin is when you don't actually see anything but the body outline, and interpret this as body.

p4. The agenda is that it is allowed to SPEAK about abuse, not commit it. This is a valid point.

p5. Just some shouts, nothing behind.
And yes Awareness IS important. If parent get to drill their daughters "don't undress in front of boys, it'll get ou raped" then already much has been achieved.
p3. NOTHING happened to Dakota and other what wasn't needed for scenes we see.. and for this not much nudity was needed. Seriously, we see more of Lohan in "Parent Trap". And the script, by the way also doesn't require for anything save hand or leg to be bare.

When a girl is shot in the belly and bleeds on screen, like in Pan's Labyrinth, you don't expect they actually cut girl's belly and let it bleed, do you?

ALL filmas are heavily edited, and that means absolutely nothing.

Reply

Determining artistic merit and censorship by the "Christian" Right is more frightening than any movie content that I can imagine.

Reply