More Fun With Hounddog
Filed under: Drama, Independent, Sundance, Festival Reports, Celebrities and Controversy, Politics, Lists, Cinematical Indie
It's never really fair to add to the million woes of the indie filmmaker by mentioning the troubles stirring around them pre-release. After all, it's what's on screen that counts. But there comes a time when the fuss is irresistible to watch, especially after a look at Cinematical's Kevin Polowy and Kim Voynar's reviews of Hounddog, as well as Monika Bartyzel's earlier anticipation of the trouble to come, from that now notorious Sundance film best known as the "Dakota Fanning rape movie."
The LA Times's Robin Abcarian did the pro-Hounddog piece on Jan. 20 , taking the high road as she described the 21 credited producers, the usual horror stories of money dropping out and director Deborah Kampmeier hocking her car. S.T. VanAirsdale of The Reeler took a significantly lower road, reproducing, in all of its misspelled glory, the ad Kampmeier wrote for the Sundance newsletter which describes trying to avoid the unions while she made Hounddog. As a reward for this small act of union-avoidance, Volkswagen presented her with a VW Touareg. It's interesting to note in Neil Gabler's book on Walt Disney, by the way, that unionized newspaper critics refused to attend the screening of Pinocchio because of Disney's well-known labor troubles. Other times, other morals. Warmly heralding the director's "exploitative, racist piece of s--t," VanAirsdale links to Manhola Darghis' by now famous Sundance screed calling Hounddog "overinflated rubbish ... as sincere as it is stupid."
While waiting for someone to find the tongs with which to handle this movie, you can sign (sight unseen) either the "block Hounddog petition" or the "support the movie Hounddog" petition.
_thumbnail.jpg)
Fan Made: Steampunk 'Return of the Jedi' Figures_thumbnail.jpg)
Exclusive: 'A Christmas Tale' Poster Premiere_thumbnail.jpg)
Cinematical's Fourth Annual Halloween Costume Contest is Coming!
Netflix Unleashes Another Batch of "Forgotten" Flicks
Geek Daily: Wolverine, 'Batman 3', 'Punisher' and 'Kick-Ass'
_thumbnail.jpg)
_thumbnail.jpg){kind=spacer}
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
2-01-2007 @ 12:18PM
VALERI said...
A movie is a movie. Rape is a FACT OF LIFE. Not pretty, but come on people, are we trying to shelter ourselves from the truth here?
I hope it gets the chance it deserves to be seen, and is then judged by its educational and entertainment value.
Reply
2-02-2007 @ 9:52AM
otter said...
I hope the movie finds a distributor so people can see it and judge for themselves.
Reply
2-02-2007 @ 8:53PM
intelec said...
Even though allegedly no children were actually sexually assaulted, I hope the movies of this sort are blocked as contraband for the use of 12 year old minors (and younger children and infants) in their sexually explicit productions on the principle that it is exploitative of minors for them to be used to simulate explicit sexual behavior in visual depictions. This type of film comes dangerously close to opening the door to pedophilic fantasies being made as if they were protected adult porn using actual children. We should be able to take the appearance of minors in such films as probable cause of exploitation and investigate every case and with cases where minors were not physically harmed - bring those to a local grand jury to decide if the film survives the tests for material that is exploitative of a child.
Child sexuality as pedophilic fahtasy and modern obsession and child porn are BIG business. The film and porn producers will try to get away with using virtual child porn themes and making virtual childporn that is indistinguisahable from actual child porn films. This should never be okay- sexually explicit film producers should never feel safe to use the likenesses let alone participation of actual children even in simulations.This is exploitative of ALL of our children. Every child porn maker these days is claiming that their works are just "morphing" or entirely computer generated. That's Hogwash! Free speech protections just like maturing sexuality combined with naivety in minors - these were never meant to be twisted to be used against the children for adult emotional and sexual obsessions. Children are harmed by contact with sexually mature material and by performing simulated sex and are also harmed and exploited by their faces and identities being associated virtual depictions even where sex is simulated and the child was not actually penetrated. These producers need to be prosecuted for child exploitation. Free speech is not protected if it is harmful to children.
If you caught your child performing a similar act with the babysitter- you'd call the police!
Reply