Sundance News: "Chicago 10" Disappoints; Dakota Fanning's "Hounddog" Violating Child Pornography Laws? "Crazy Love" Causes Bidding War
Summary
Since the Sundance Film Festival started two days ago, three films have already drawn extra media attention. "Chicago 10," Brett Morgen's highly anticipated follow-up to "The Kid Stays in the Picture," disappointed critics; "Hounddog," starring Dakota Fanning, might face a child pornography violation; and "Crazy Love," with its wild and disturbing love story, generated a bidding war between indie distributors. What will the rest of the week bring? Back to Article
Since the Sundance Film Festival started two days ago, three films have already drawn extra media attention. "Chicago 10," Brett Morgen's highly anticipated follow-up to "The Kid Stays in the Picture," disappointed critics; "Hounddog," starring Dakota Fanning, might face a child pornography violation; and "Crazy Love," with its wild and disturbing love story, generated a bidding war between indie distributors. What will the rest of the week bring? Back to Article
(1-85 of 85 posts) | Reply
 on Jan 21 2007 04:42 AM [b]Child Pornography Laws!?![/b] Where the heck are Dakota Fannings parents? How the hell do you let your kid be in a film that has a child rape sequence in it?!? This is why so many child stars grow up to be such messed up adults. Someone should get their ass kicked over this. Seriously this makes me throw up a little in my mouth. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 21 2007 06:32 AM In reply to this comment (#853518) [b]Are you Pat Robertson?[/b] although the subject matter is disturbing, Dakota Fanning is an actor, and a very professional one considering she is so young, definitely more so than many actors twice her age. To suggest playing a role would warp her later in life is insane- what screws up child actors is the publicity they get and personal matters at home. Look at all the happy roles that child actors played on "Different Strokes". Those were certainly family friendly roles and yet the actors all turned out SCREWED UP If Laura Bush and the Christian Leagues make a big deal out of this, that would be the biggest blow to Dakota Fanning's feelings, NOT this film!! although it would generate a lot more profit for it (Reply to this) |
 on Jan 21 2007 08:14 AM I think it's a snake. (Reply to this) |
 on Jan 21 2007 08:34 AM [b]umm[/b] im pretty sure that this thing with the retarded christian league is just a bunch of stupid hooplah. Her parents would not have let her do it if it violated any kind of personal space on Dakotas part, so why the hell would they have an inquiry just because they knew what was happening in the scene? Its just plain stupid. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 21 2007 08:35 AM child pornography laws? I don't think the actor playing the rapist really had sex with her (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 21 2007 09:14 AM i think simulation is illegal when the actor is a minor. how that ties in with pornography laws, not sure... (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 21 2007 09:46 AM Who the hell still listens to Bill Donohue when he takes his mouth of Pat Robertsons dick to say something? It may be a graphic rape scene, but it serves an artistic purpose as opposed to smut. point is, stop being a little bitch. it's a movie. grow up. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 21 2007 10:08 AM In reply to this comment (#853519) I do agree with you that I hope this isn't blown up into a media spectacle because that would just make money for this guy and as you said put the girl into a terrible situation. That said however I couldn't disagree with you and the other posters more on the other aspects of this. I don't care if she's an actor. She's a child first. Should we let 12 year olds drink, join the military, vote or get married just because they are mature for their age? As for this being art, that's the biggest load of crap I've ever heard. I for one have no desire to see a portrayal of a child being raped I don't give a rat's arse how "artistically" it's protrayed. What possible positive message are they trying to get across here? Child abuse is bad? I think most of us already know that. To the person that said this is just acting and no abuse took place, I know that and I'm not one of those nut jobs who thinks the movies are real or even that TV or the movies should be blamed when people try to replicate scene's at home, but look at it this way. If you had a kid would you think it's healthy in any way to have someone pretend to rape them? Even if the act isn't actually done. I'm willing to concede that as an actress she can PROBABLY not run into that problem and distinguish the difference without problem, but if it's my kid I'm not taking that chance. All in all I still think this is pretty messed up. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 21 2007 10:16 AM In reply to this comment (#853525) I'm really not familiar with Bill Donohue or his views, but to your point I disagree with alot of stuff Jesse Jackson AND Bill O'Reilly say, but if one of them had brought this up I'd want it investigated by the proper authorities just in case they were right and something wrong had been done. Regardless of who brings it up it should be investigated. You can't let your opinions of the person bringing the charges blind you to the fact that something wrong might actually have occurred. I'm the first to admit that I may be way off base here and I sincerely hope there's nothing wrong going on here, but if this IS as it's being portrayed I want to make sure it doesn't happen again. Better safe than sorry in my opinion. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 21 2007 10:51 AM [b]Wait and See[/b] All we know right now is that some wako catholic vying for self-promotion is making a stink about what may be nothing at all. Why don't you all reserve judgement until you have a few of the facts? (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 21 2007 11:25 AM In reply to this comment (#853528) I agree. We really shouldn't be making any judgements about this scene until we know more about it. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 21 2007 11:42 AM I know its fashionable to be anti-Catholic or anti-religion in this crowd but why does it matter if the Pope or Roman Polanski brought the charges up? The law and the scene in question could easily be disprove or verify. Its a pretty straight forward law. Until then, please do away with the knee jerk reactions. (Reply to this) |
 on Jan 21 2007 11:57 AM Child porn is labeled as such because it is meant to draw titilation. Is anyone out there really going to think a dramatized rape involving a minor is going to be shown as soemthing hot and heavy? I imagine the film will show it in a disturbing light, therefore this dramatization can not be viewed as porn. Also, for God's sake, they're acting parts in a story and she willingly took the role. If this counts as child porn then Bill Donahue may want to invesitgate every other episode of Law and Order SVU. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 21 2007 12:11 PM In reply to this comment (#853531) You guys are right we should wait before kneejerk reactions. This kind of topic draws knee jerk reactions though. I withdraw my earlier knee jerk condemnation of the parents, but I still have serious doubts about how this could possibly be something positive. Personally I don't care what light it's shown in it seems pretty pointless to me. Like I said before what's going to be the message here that Raping a kid is horrible and wrong, yeah kinda knew that without seeing a scene in a film about it. This is the artistic equivalent of trying to convince someone that shooting yourself in the head is not conducive to a long life. Also don't think just because a 12 year old did something consentually necessarily makes it right. I guess it just would seem very exploitative and wrong to me IF this scene is in any way graphic in nature. It seems like they could handle it off screne as they do in Law and Order. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 21 2007 12:19 PM Boxman ...there is a reason why you don't see a lot of scene depicting a child being explicitly raped ...its against the law to do so. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 21 2007 12:46 PM In reply to this comment (#853518) who are you to criticise? its a movie, all fake, dont get your panties in a bunch. its Dakota's choice, if she didnt like the movie, and didnt want to do the rape scene, she wouldn't have done the movie. who know's, she could get the academy's attention for being a young girl and doing the movie. (Reply to this) |
 on Jan 21 2007 12:54 PM In reply to this comment (#853534) It may be her choice, but if she chooses to kill someone, should we let her do that, too? The question comes down to this: should we protect people from their own ignorance/stupidity/innocence or not? (Reply to this) |
 on Jan 21 2007 01:16 PM In reply to this comment (#853518) [b]America's Dangerous trun to the right[/b] Sure, I have not seen Dakota's movie, but it sounds exactly like the work Jodi Foster was doing at that age in Taxi Driver and Pretty Baby. It might be controversial, but it is not child porn. Furthermore, I find it a cross between laughable and disgusting that Catholic church would be up in arms over this. What exactly is their issue? Are they upset because it wasn't a young boy being raped, as God intended? (Reply to this) |
 on Jan 21 2007 01:51 PM You have to love the ignorance of the nerds in this forum, if it was Bill Clinton then they would be praising him for trying to protect little kids, but because it is a catholic, these intolerant bigots shoot their retarded mouths off, get the democrats dick out of your mouth and grow up. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 21 2007 02:48 PM In reply to this comment (#853538) I will not listen to anyone who is telling people to grow up when they say phrases like "dick in your mouth" you sound like a 13 year old yourself. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 21 2007 02:50 PM ha ha. you guys.. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 21 2007 03:39 PM In reply to this comment (#853534) OK, We're getting a bit off topic here, let's try to keep the debate civil and intelligent and keep the liberal, conservative and Catholic bashing to a minimum since neither are really the issue here. The point I keep trying to make and people seem to keep missing is this. She may very well have made the choice, BUT SHE WAS 12 YEARS OLD AT THE TIME. SHE'S PROBABLY NOT GOING TO BE OLD ENOUGH TO WATCH THIS MOVIE MUCH LESS STAR IN IT. IF there is something to this, even if it's not what is legally called child pornography and just a graphically depicted rape scene does anyone honestly believe a 12 year old is equipped to make an informed decision on this? My only hope is that she's not going to public school if this gets blown up into something big with the media. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 21 2007 04:42 PM If you put limits on certain subject matter, you're a censor and have no business discussing this among film enthusiasts. Kindly relocate to the american family association forums. If you're concerned about the set conditions, I don't believe there's been anything but speculation here. If you're smart, you'll do some research (would probably help to bring it to the table) or wait until there's more information. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 21 2007 05:32 PM According to reports on the net, the scene shows Dakota from her neck up. She was also fully dressed in the scene. From the sounds of it, the rapist may be barely seen or not seen at all. However, of more concern is a scene in which she materbates with another actor. The scene is said to have been "conveniently" destroyed shortly afterwards. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 21 2007 05:54 PM Further reports show that the parents were on set, as well as a child psychiatrist. That if Dakota felt, at any time, uncomfortable, they'd stop production. As for the issue at hand? Know that it is possible to show an ugly or horrific thing beautifully. It's called artistic expression. Well done war movies are the ones that find the humanity, the tragic irony in the throes of madness and chaos. You aren't supposed to leave those movies with a desire to kill and join the military (I'm talking of the artistic ones <-- not the propoganda). By the same token, anyone and everyone who 1: hasn't seen the movie and 2: doesn't realize or know the message of those who made the movie, should surely shut up. That said. I haven't seen it. Though I have read some articles about it and have some idea what the point is and how it was filmed (with the actresses mental state in mind) (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 21 2007 09:18 PM In reply to this comment (#853539) Oh you are a fool, are you sure you are not 13? (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 21 2007 11:02 PM [b]Child porn? Give me a break![/b] Are they really going to attack a movie that is itself an attack on sexual assault and incest? (Reply to this) |
 on Jan 22 2007 12:00 AM I know one of the producers on this film and the facts the poster above listed are correct. Dakota was fully dressed and bothe her mother and a psychiatrist were on set and it was a closed set. I'm seeing the movie Tuesday morning so I'll give a repot on what I see. What I find interesting is no one made this kind of fuss when "A Time to Kill" came out, which shows a graphic rape scene of a 10-year-old girl. Where was the Catholic League then? (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 22 2007 12:13 AM In reply to this comment (#853547) [b]"Where was the Catholic League then?"[/b] They couldn't imagine that she was white? (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 22 2007 12:21 AM In reply to this comment (#853547) Yeah god forbide people look out for little kids, fucking internet nerds, no wonder you guys have no friends, you are intolerant bigots. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 22 2007 12:25 AM In reply to this comment (#853549) I'd just like to say... aknddon is calling people (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 22 2007 06:26 AM Yeah, it just wouldn't be a controversial topic without aknddon showing up to toss childish insults around like a whiny brat. Keep it real, man! (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 22 2007 06:50 AM Yeah, I love his assumptions that we have no friends, that we're all bigots, and my favorite is that we're all internet nerds when he is apparently on here as much as we are. Aknddon, please, please send us all a link where we can see a picture of you. I have this image in my mind and I want to see how close I am (not that you would ever send a real picture anyway) But back to the topic. I have no problem that anyone protecting kids. I think that's a great idea. And that was the point of my post, was that Dakota was protected at all times. But I also love the way religious organizations (and not just the Catholics, all of them) pick and choose what and when they want to protect. And I'm sorry, but kids now days are a lot more aware of things than perhaps we were as children. I'm sure Dakota is aware of what rape is. Is that a good thing? Probably not, but it's life in the 21st century. And I have no doubt the director (also a female) talked with her and her parents about the scene. I haven't seen the movie yet (as I said before) but my understanding is that everything about that scene is implied and not that graphic. Again, I'll know better once I've seen it and I'll let you know. (Although the premiere is tonight, so someone else will probably let us all in on it before I can) (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 22 2007 06:57 AM First of all anyone who will go see this film just to see Dakota Fanning get raped is a pervert. I don't think the director was at home thinking to himself Dakota is hot I want to see a scene of her naked so I can toss the Salad. I don't think that. I know she is 12. Anyone who is sane knows she is 12. Its a movie and from I read by the synopois a very sad one. Dakota is a 30 - 40 year old in a 12 year old body if you've seen her latest interviews, she is very mature for her age but I don't think anything more than that. I know she is Jail Bait, and any other Sane person know she is Jail Bait. . She is also very talented. But I don't think she'll end up like Britiany, Lidsney or the others. I think Her and her Parents can tell Fantasy from reality and I think the movie will do well. I won't see it because it looks too disturbing for me. But I'm sure all hype and talk about this will fizzle away and Dakota will go back to making something else. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 22 2007 07:35 AM First, I'll say I don't believe for a second that anything actually physically happened on set. Too many people are present on a film production set for anything inappropriate (and illegal) like that to happen without getting out. I'm sure they'll find this to be the case. I'll say if I had a 12 year old daughter that was an actress, there's no way she would be involved with material like this, but the fact is I don't. It's the Fannings' call, distasteful as it may seem to others. Myself, I won't be seeing this. But that's just my own decision - everyone is free to make decisions for themselves as they see fit (it's just not how I want to be entertained). (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 22 2007 08:39 AM In reply to this comment (#853535) [b]wtf[/b] Worst analogy ever? How the hell did you go from acting to killing someone? Until the scene is actually shown I refuse to believe it breaks any laws. It's a movie, the directors wouldn't allow some actor, whether fake or not, to get a 12 year old naked on screen. Some of you people are crying as if it's really being done or something to this girl. Plenty of movies have had controversial or critical moments depicting stuff we're not used to seeing, I don't see how this is any different. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 22 2007 09:30 AM In reply to this comment (#853552) I can honestly say I'm glad this was false, but I won't apologise for getting worked up over it. When we stop getting worked up over stuff like this is when mistakes start being made. I'd rather have 50 cases of crying wolf than to have one slip past. Same for any topic regardless of politics or religion. I do however find the grouping of all Catholics much less all religious groups or religious people under one heading quite silly. Catholics and religious folk come in all shapes, sizes and opinions just like Liberals, Conservatives and all people of various colors and creeds. Just because you don't agree with a certain persons point it's no excuse to stereotype the entire group. It's one of the things that ticks me off so much about people like Pat Robertson, Jesse Jackson or any of the talking news heads we have to view on 24 hour news. One person I don't care how self-riteous they are can't speak for an entire race, religious group or political affiliation and to give them that much credit and validate their delusions is a mistake, but then again that's just one mans opinion. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 22 2007 09:34 AM [b]WTF!!![/b] is anything sacred or taboo anymore??? Who or how could anyone make a movie about child rape? whats wrong with poeple? (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 22 2007 11:32 AM [b]The truth about Child Pornography[/b] The New York v. Ferber case which established the child pornography laws was established to protect children that are ACTUALLY having sex on film. So-called 'virtual' or simulated sex is still debated as to whether it is illegal or not, as was seen in Ashcroft v. ACLU. While I haven't seen the film in question, it appears that it will NOT violate the New York v. Ferber laws because A.) the sex is not real, Ms. Fanning was not actually having sex on camera and therefore was not subjected to the child abuse that needs to be present in order for it to be illegal, and B.) the film seems to have artistic merit and is not exploitation. If this film is banned, we could easily go ahead and find legimate legislation to ban other, less threatening material such as documentaries or pamphlets about child abuse that have the intention of informing and educating soceity about the evil of this act. While I cannot be certain since I have not seen this "graphic scene", I would most likely assume that this is a movement from the far right to censor what should be protected under the First Amendment. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 22 2007 11:43 AM In reply to this comment (#853558) Lets not call in the ACLU just yet :) Appreciate the legal knowledge, but so far it's just one guy who's the president of soem Catholic organization calling for the movie to be investigated. No one's burning books just yet. God I love how quick conspiracy theories start :) Seriously though thanks for the legal stuff. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 22 2007 11:46 AM In reply to this comment (#853558) I agree its probably not illegal but the question is why? Why does soceity need to explore this topic? Do we really need such a foul, tasteless, evil subject shoved into our faces? Then maybe we need to explore beastilaity some more! Make a series of movies on why some people want to do it with there dogs and horses, how about golden showers, lets really get into that subject shall we? And jail house anal rapes, why do some men rape others? My point is no matter the legality of this issue, we as a society must put our foot down and establish boundries of decency and taste. It is our right and our duty. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 22 2007 12:00 PM In reply to this comment (#853537) Jodie Foster was only in Taxi Driver; Brooke Shields was in Pretty Baby. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 22 2007 12:24 PM In reply to this comment (#853550) Yeah do i attack peoples religion or race? No, so yes they are intolerant. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 22 2007 12:24 PM In reply to this comment (#853551) Oh yeah and it is not childish to attack the catholics right? You hypocritical bigot. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 22 2007 12:58 PM In reply to this comment (#853564) It's tempting to argue with you, but there's nothing I can say to embarrass you more than you do yourself. I just hope that someday, if you make it to high school, you'll look back on some of your old posts here at RT and laugh - the way we might chuckle at our own childhood memories of wetting the bed, or asking our mother why the fat lady at the grocery store has blue lines on her legs. (Reply to this) |
 on Jan 22 2007 01:03 PM [b]seriously.[/b] Do you guys really think that an entire production company, a movie studio (in one form or another), the parents, Fanning herself, the person in question...you think ALL these people stood there and said "Yeah, it's child porn, and we LOVE it! So leave it in!" No way. And why should we explore it? You know, you've got a point there. It's reality, and sometimes these realities are extremely harsh. So let's do the mature, intelligent thing and not explore it. Let's just pretend it doesn't exist. Let's bury it deep down, because we all know how well that goes over (I'm waving to you, Catholics). So yes, let's pretend that Walt Disney is secretly our diving God and that these things are pointless to explore, because we all know talking bunnies and forgetful fish make up reality. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 22 2007 01:08 PM In reply to this comment (#853565) HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA, i love it when little 12 year olds tell other to make it out of high school, are you even in high school? You sound like that jr. high nerd that gets picked on by everyone. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 22 2007 01:10 PM In reply to this comment (#853566) Yeah the mature thing is to ignore it, god you people are funny. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 22 2007 01:12 PM In reply to this comment (#853568) i suppose my method of beating people senseless with the sarcasm doesn't work if the person has no common sense to begin with. my mistake. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 22 2007 01:21 PM In reply to this comment (#853567) Ah yes, the infallible I-know-you-are-but-what-am-I argument. Well played, sir. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 22 2007 01:34 PM In reply to this comment (#853528) [b]wako catholic?[/b] I thought that the forums were monitored? Otherwise I would'nt see this type of prejudice and hate against people you obviously know nothing about and their religious affiliation, and you would save space with your incongruent posts that are contradictory. Why don't You reserve judgement until you know the facts? A movie that needs to graphically show a real twelve year old girl's character being raped is unnecessary and most definitely illegal (they call those kids minors). I could see if the movie is trying to represent how horrific and awful the raper is and what a heinous act he is committing, but there is only so far you can legally go with a child and the people in movies, laws still come into play. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 22 2007 01:54 PM In reply to this comment (#853566) I somewhat take your point, but honestly if I want to see that kind of reality I can probably find it on the net, the news, or depending on my neighborhood out my front door. The reason I go to movies is to see something better than reality and this is just personal preference, but I've seen enough movies lately that left me feeling crappy. Give me talking bunnies every time. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 22 2007 02:25 PM In reply to this comment (#853570) Oh the whole (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 22 2007 03:19 PM [b]This wrong Hollywood should Know Better!!![/b] This is a classic use big name and sex to sell a film don't try to pull that art shit with me there are many way to get the rape scene accross in the film, or that fact that the child was raped, use dolls, or simply imply the scene with sound and scape! you don't put a child through that shit even acting it is wrong. I don't care how mature you think it is its not mature at any level to show children naked or act in sex scenes in the name of art. this film needs to be shut down, it only going to give a bunch of sick people out there something to jack off to. Stop This Film boycott!!!!!!!!! (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 22 2007 03:57 PM In reply to this comment (#853571) i hate to be a stickler, but from what i've read, the "graphic rape" is only implied. you actually don't see anything. so it doesn't show it; i suppose that's worse, but it's not illegal. it's all cerebral. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 22 2007 04:10 PM In reply to this comment (#853555) It's called reasoning through extreme logic -- take a subject matter that is a shade of gray and make it black and white so that it's easier to understand. Just KISSin it, is all. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 22 2007 05:30 PM In reply to this comment (#853573) "Oh the whole A strategy you know all too well about. But you are correct in that it was childish of me to attack all Catholics based on the ravings of one person, and for that I apologize. Although based on some of the things the Catholic church has done and hidden, it amazes me anyone still belongs to them. I don't know why everyone is getting so worked up over a movie NONE of us have seen yet. I'm willing to bet the rape is implied and only one scene in a 100 minute movie, and probably not even the most important scene. But again, I'll let you know after I see it tomorrow morning. As to the whole "why explore it" thing. Because that's what art does, it shows us the human condition, both the good and the bad, and helps us deal with things that are often unpleasant. (if we choose to. People have said they're not going to see the film, and I respect that.) (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 22 2007 05:42 PM In reply to this comment (#853574) If only you knew history and the workings of hollywood. First it is false that hollywood (generally) exploits sex to sell a film, Hollywood usually avoids R ratings because it makes less money, don't believe me?, read the big picture: money and power in hollywood. Second you haven't been reading, Dakota was not naked, had clothes on, had a shrink with her and her mother and the film is trying to attack child sex abuse. Did you knew that more than 200,000 are used for sexual encounters. It is not being discussed openly, this film is trying to actually do something, but we people always turn a blind eye in a curtain of self righteousness. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 22 2007 06:57 PM In reply to this comment (#853518) [b]Big Difference in Acting and What Happens in Real[/b] It takes a dedicated actress to read a script and choose a role with controversy attached to it, this actress unfortunately is still a child but never the less it's still acting, but these are things that happen in real life, the word child to many including me brings these words to mind "innocence, happy, angel, protection, fight for, maybe even the word kill for", but waking up to reality and seeing it first hand, most of these kids at even a younger age than Dakota Fanning are exposed to things they should never be exposed to, This is life and it takes an excellent actress to wake up some of these movie viewers to reality and what's happening in this world. Like when Hillary Swank played that role in Boys don't cry whether it's an adult or a child rape is rape, but it happens, let people know to whom all over this world. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 22 2007 07:00 PM In reply to this comment (#853578) People are still Catholic because they know that the "stuff" hidden was bad but greatly exagerated by the media and the simple fact that a lot of accused people were in fact innocent. Why do people still go to public schools even though more teachers are pedophiles? (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 22 2007 07:33 PM Okay, I'm guessing you're Catholic. I have no problem with that, I know a bunch of Catholics (including my stepmother) and most of them are nice, caring people. Personal religion and spirituality I have no issue with, but organized religion is nothing but a way to control the masses. Of course, we could argue this back and forth until the forum explodes and get nowhere, so we'll just have to agree to disagree. And don't assume I was referring just to the whole pedophilia thing. Let's not forget the Spanish Inquisition, the Crusades, persecution of Jews, and other number of things done in the name of God by the Catholic Church. And I use the Catholics only because it's a Catholic who's stirring up all the fuss. I'm well aware that no religion is squeaky clean, much as they might claim they are. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 22 2007 07:47 PM In reply to this comment (#853582) Well i partially agree with you on the opium to the masses thing. The Spanish Inquisition was also very much political, people forget that. The Crusades started off completely justified but was very much more political than religious, they were threatened by the Muslim advances into their terrritory they needed to protect their land. THat was more political than religious. Persecution of the Jews? WHat by chance are you talking about? (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 22 2007 11:19 PM In reply to this comment (#853583) Gra Anyway, I never meant this to get off on a Catholic-bashing thing, so we'll move on from here and get back to discussing movies, shall we? And I like this new rational you. You should try it more often and I think people would take you more seriously and we could have some really good conversations. Later. It's late here in Salt Lake and I have to be up at 6:30 to make sure I'm at the Hound Dog screening. I'm going to bed. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 22 2007 11:57 PM [b]::to aknddon3::[/b] *ahem* this house...is clean. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 23 2007 01:17 AM In reply to this comment (#853585) What? (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 23 2007 08:58 AM In reply to this comment (#853582) Someone's always going to try to take control... whether it's organized religion, individual autocrats, etc... On the whole, organized religion has provided a better framework for people to follow than general anarchy or totalatarian rule. Ultimately, the masses need/want to be controlled to a certain degree. Unfortunately, the self-serving nature of Man creates an unpleasant dichotomy between unity and happiness. Personally, I prefer individualism -- let me do what I want and you do what you want. But then people start stepping on each others toes and things spiral downhill after that. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 23 2007 10:25 AM i am a democrat, and not catholic... and i still think its a little sick to have a 12 year old in a supposed graphic rape scene. yes it was dakota's choice, but the director should act professional and have hired someone older to play the part. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 23 2007 01:00 PM Well, I saw Hounddog this morning and, as I suspected, people got their panties in a wad about nothing. The supposed "graphic" rape scene is anything but, and was very well handled, relying mostly on sound effects and facial reactions, the majority of the reactions handled by another boy witnessing the rape. You never see any skin on skin, the only "nudity" of Dakota is from the shoulders up, and the whole scene is maybe a minute and a half, and that includes the dance leading up to the rape. Only in a totalitarian regime would this scene even began to approach anything near the definition of pornography. Pick any prime-time drama and you'll see things ten times as graphic. Is the scene disturbing? Certainly, as it should be. But graphic? Not a chance. And it's a small part of a solid, well-told drama. So everyone can breath easier now. The republic will stand. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 24 2007 10:40 AM In reply to this comment (#853589) [b]Edit[/b] methinks perhaps RT should now edit the part of the article that says Hounddog contains a graphic rape scene then, seeing as it is adding to the confusion, no? (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 24 2007 10:44 AM In reply to this comment (#853526) Scanning through all the hoopla surrounding this issue this comment stuck out because it compares make-believe acts to children drinking and carrying guns, lol. Film is an art that uses actors to portray a story. Everyone knows what to expect and, yes, her parents were on the sideline because they knew what to expect. How in the hell does a young actor agreeing to help portray a child being raped relate to mature young people literally killing people or getting married? It would be related to children portraying murders in film, which has already been done a million times and WHY DOESN'T ANYONE CARE THEN. All these "prude" religious folk that protect thei own priests who are raping and molesting their own kids. Stop condeming an industry that depicts the actions your own leaders take part in. LALALLAA stop breeding. Hopefully Dakota will be able to take part in many a rape scene when she's the ripe ole age of 18. Then it's A-OK. (Reply to this) |
 on Jan 24 2007 12:03 PM [b]TAXI DRIVER, you stupid people![/b] Remember that movie where Bob DeNiro goes nuts and kills people? Well guess what? Jodie Foster played a prostitute in that movie. Complete with rape scenes and the like. Now, most of us have not seen the Fanning movie, but I'm almost positive it is not more graphic than Taxi Driver. Blowing this up will do just what you all are suggesting: make the movie more popular. So keep bitching, but you all sound stupid when Jodie Foster got nominated for the Academy Award for doing something probably not much worse. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 24 2007 12:36 PM In reply to this comment (#853591) Oh yeah because i guess to you there is no difference between a 12 and an 18 year old. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 24 2007 02:11 PM In reply to this comment (#853591) The point I was trying to make is that a 12 year old no matter how mature for her age is not equipped to make such a decision and I am neither a prude nor overly religious and don't think not wanting to see the portrayal of a child being raped on film necessarily qualifies you as either. Also to your point I think the priests who molested those children should be punished to the fullest extent of the law, but I also think you shouldn't judge an entire religion based on the acts of a few of its employee's. Imagine if all the directors in Hollywood were judged against Roman Polanski's standard. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 25 2007 10:56 AM In reply to this comment (#853594) A few aka a whole HELL of a lot. If you haven't noticed, it's an epidemic. I was raised Catholic. A priest that taught me molested about 5 of my classmates, sorry if I have a bad opinion but I do and always will. I just think that getting all upset over anything that is factual and being portrayed in a movie is silly. There's way too much in the REAL WORLD that we should pay attention to. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 25 2007 10:57 AM In reply to this comment (#853593) Lol, you didn't get that joke then did ya? (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 25 2007 12:23 PM In reply to this comment (#853593) Jodie Foster was 14 when taxi Driver was made. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 25 2007 01:54 PM In reply to this comment (#853595) Yeah except for the fact that it was not alot of people, i knew a priest that was accused by a little scumbag like you and it ended up being fake, like most of them are, but his rep was ruined by a loser like you. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 25 2007 03:06 PM In reply to this comment (#853586) i was refering to Poltergeist and the "cleansing of the demons"...that's about it. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 26 2007 12:53 AM Dakota Fanning is a worm, let her get raped. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 27 2007 04:05 PM Sounds like a bad idea for a film. I'm not sure why anyone would want to see it. Seems like if the idea was central to the story, it could have been done off camera (I know we only see her from the neck up). To those saying that Catholics are protecting priests who committed crimes - you are wrong. While the church certainly was wrong and perhaps criminal by hiding some priest's crimes, most (if not all) Catholics are outraged by their actions. Also, there is just as much "moralizing" from those who are anti-religion/anti-Catholic on here as well. Probably a discussion for a different website. (Reply to this) |
 on Jan 28 2007 08:33 PM In reply to this comment (#853519) Ah, but on "different STROKES" Arnold and his lil buddy were molested by a bike shop owner who gave them candy. I dont care how mature and professional Dakota is, its just wrong. Its bad enough you cant shield your kids from graphic sex, but to be a child playing a part where your being raped is uneacceptable. At least for me. Its sickening. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 28 2007 10:35 PM In reply to this comment (#853598) Every post you've written has just dug you into a hole. You cannot even argue reasonbly. "I knew a priest that was a accused of a little scumbag like you..." seriously, save it for someone who cares. Every argument you've made has sounded like repressed hostility. Tell me, were you molested as a child? Because all I keep hearing about is the Catholic Church, everyone being a bigot, and other pieces of crap that have nothing to do with the general discussion. Well, with that rant over, here' s my opinion. Truthfully, on one side, it was Dakota Fanning's choice to do this scene, and really, if Laura Bush is so worried about one actor, then why aren't they trying to stop REAL child molestation? However, I seriously don't agree with a twelve year old doing a rape-scene. It may not show anything, but still, it really makes me sick to stomach to think of that. (Reply to this) |
|
on Apr 07 2007 01:53 PM In reply to this comment (#853541) Big Brother? You're diving into a subject that has caused debate for many throughout centuries. When is old enough old enough? In 1843, a 13-year old girl named Isabel II was crowned the queen of Spain. Her subjects had thought she was going to be this sweet and docile leader who treated her kingdom with compassion and understanding. However, she turned out to be a tyrant. Nonetheless, her subjects took her seriously in spite of the fact that she was crowned the queen a year before Spanish law allowed her to be so. Back in 1990s, a 12-year old boy was elected as mayor to a small town in Texas. In 1913 or 1914, a group of Serbian conspirators murdered Archduke Ferdinand and his pregnant wife Sofia of Austria-Hungary. The reason they were not sentenced to death when they were caught was because most of them were under 20 years old, which was the minimum age one could be put to death in Austria-Hungary. Because of this conversative idealism, the angry people of Austria-Hungary waged war against the Serbians and then practically the whole world got involved in it in the form of World War I. My grandfather fought in that war. Recently our United States Supreme Court ruled that nobody under 18 years of age could be sentenced to death in our country. However, numerous political interest groups continue to challenge this ruling inasmuch as we are finding that 12, 13, 14, and 15-year olds are much more violent than they were in 1957. Sue Lyon was not old enough to see herself in the 1962 "Lolita". Yet that film was a major box office hit. If you're talking against a 6-year old child being placed in a controversial scene of this nature, you're not going to get much of a debate. However, our nation sees girls as young as Dakota Fanning put their sex lives on exhibition just about every day on the Maury Povich show. (Reply to this) |
|
on Sep 03 2007 12:22 AM In reply to this comment (#853526) You need a reality check. 12 year olds are drinking, smoking and having sex. You can blame it on moral decay, uncaring parents, Madeline Murray Ohare or a myriad of other choices but that is the reality. There is no longer the moral compass that we grew up on to guide young people today. In school they are told they are no different than the animals so just do whatever feels good with whom ever you want. Try it all. So I don't think you can place moral standards on people that don't have them any longer. We are a post Christian society and that is what gave you the laws and standards you are screaming about. Welcome to the brave new world. When God gets tired of this I would suggest you duck. (Reply to this) |
|
on Oct 12 2007 06:00 AM What? We can show kids of all ages getting killed and even butchered but we can't show a situation that happens too often in real life? We can even support sending soldiers, teen age boys, to the mideast to kill women and children (collateral damage) but can't let a 12 year old girl act out a real life situation that she certainly understands is acting, not real. How did we get our morals so screwed up? (Reply to this) |
