My Photo

October 2010

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
          1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
Blog powered by Typepad

Photo Albums

« STAND UP | Main | IT'S UP TO YOU »

August 21, 2006



I still think it's funny how you believed the other scene and still do. I listened to the blue line show every weekend and you still have not called. I want you to believe it so when this is all over it will show how misinformed you were. I'm not buying the media blackout theory. Reporters live for this kind of stuff. Do you realize the kind of ratings they would get? They haven't reported anything because there is nothing to report and I'm sure they are scared of possible lawsuits if they don't get the story right. Ask yourself why Marc and Tre no longer comment about this? They have had time to talk to more people and realize their accounts were not completely accurate. Your right I'm on an ego trip because I know nothing will come of this and the movie will get released and no one is going to be arrested or charged with any crimes. You don't have to reply to my endless pointless rants just as I don't have to reply to yours. I enjoy this and look forward to your responses.

What makes you think Dakota will not be willing to talk about this movie? Your going to be surprised just how much she tries to promote the film and how much she enjoyed being a part of the movie. Intellectually bankrupt? Perhaps but there simply is nothing else to argue about until it gets released or more details are made public which will be very soon.



Let's look at this logically. Paramount has just spent beaucoups money in the making and the promoting of "Charlotte's Web". They are spending a truck load more as we speak on further promotion, including what will inevitably be TV appearances by Dakota. The entire movie was built around her.

Because of "Hounddog", a cheap, disgusting and degenerate sex flick, Dakota's good image is threatened. Ultimately, it'll be fatally compromised. Should that occur during the holiday season when "Web" is expected to top the charts as a family movie, or soon afterward when the DVDs come out, what then? What about all the merchandisers... and Nintendo?

Dakota's clean image is a highly marketable commodity. Now, she's thrown that away. It'll be very important to Paramount that they get their money's worth out of her before she succumbs to that self-inflicted wound. That means that they'll likely do all they can to prevent the release or, in fact, any mention of "Hounddog" before that time.

The AFI Film Festival was scheduled to make the preliminary release on the 12th. That didn't happen. Other "sneak previews" were tentatively announced for Los Angeles, New York and San Fransico. Knowledgeable confidants of mine, many from California and Dakota-watchers from before I even knew she existed, have heard no announcements. Assuming that these releases (supposedly for late November and early December) would have gone to the upper-crust "art" theaters, there likely wouldn't have been much fanfare. Yet, not even that has happened. All the movie watch websites the even mention "Hounddog" (and never with any but basic details) are now putting "2007" behind the title.

As far into 2007 as possible, I'm sure, if Paramount/DreamWorks has anything to say about it. They'll want that time to make their money and then quietly cut their ties to her. I think I can safely predict that the "Alice in Wonderland" project is indefinitely postponed! So is Dakota's relationship with what was once her home studio.

It could have been so different and I honestly mourn her loss. She's a kid and she was badly betrayed. Now, though, she's a sex star... at 12! She could have been so much more if her handlers had allowed her to stay on a high moral plane. But that's over. Her downfall is just a matter of time.


Dakota made a comment on Aug 26th that the script for Alice hadn't been written yet and she was still deciding if she wanted to be a part of the movie and that it would be a while before filming started. There is no indication that she will not be in that movie. She is still listed in the credits on almost every site that has info. She was also still debating on the movie "The Girl Who Loved Tom Gordon" which is still listed as in production. I've heard there are some nude scenes in that movie as well.

They were trying to get Hounddog released at the AFI festival but couldn't get it completed in time for obvious reasons. It was then scheduled for a limited release and all of this was so that it would be considered for next years awards. Since they missed the AFI festival the next logical choice is Sundance. I'm sure they want a festival release before a theater release so the Nov and Dec dates will most likely be cancelled.

I agree she isn't going to say too much about this movie while promoting web other than make mention that another movie will be released soon. She is scheduled to be on the Oprah show Nov 28. This is to promote web but I'll bet she mentions Hounddog.

More information about the release of this movie will be annouced in the next week or two so all this specualtion will be put to rest. My prediction is a release at Sundance, limited release at theaters, an international release in countries that are more open minded to this type of movie, then a US release on dvd, in a year or so release on Showtime or Cinemax, and in two years an edited tv release on a cable network.

Dakota's career and image will not suffer one bit and she will continue to make plenty of other movies. Only time will tell.


Dear Cynthia:

On 29JAN05, Dakota told an interviewer that Les Bohen, the screenwriter of Spielberg's "Taken" miniseries, was working on the script of "Alice in Wonderland". Said Dakota; "So he's in the process right now and I can't wait to see it!". Since then, any mention of "Alice" has quietly disappeared from DreamWorks' website. So has Dakota's fan-thread "Starring Miss Dakota Fanning". Hardly what one would have expected for Spielberg's little protege.

By the way, you may be right about the Sundance Film Festival (18-28JAN07). A rumor points that way. I still doubt, however, that Paramount/DreamWorks will not oppose it. It's still early enough to adversely affect their profits from "Charlotte's Web". As to that rumored "Tom Gordon" movie; if it has sex and nudity, then that's probably where she'll end up. What else will be left to her?

And "open-minded Europeans"! The terms "open-minded" and "decadent" have been synonymous on the non-continent for many years. That many there would enjoy the sexual degradation of a little American girl is a given, certainly. Fortunately, many of us "closed-minded Christians" see this for what it is. In America, we care for our children. In Europe, you've become so dissolute that you can't even make them any more! Little wonder that your parental instincts and morals have faded as well.

There, I suppose, Dakota's new career of self-abasement may well continue. What a terrible downfall from where she stood only a year before. God pity her.


I have never read the Tom Gordon book but was told there is a scene where the girl takes off her clothes and takes a bath in a creek. She is alone in the woods so no sexual material. I think this was canned because of lack of interest.

The article I read was dated Aug 2004. I'm sure the Alice movie is history too. Not because of Dakota but because there is already another Alice in Wonderland movie in production.

Living in Neon Dreams

This movie is Staring Antonia Bernath as Alice & Brian Warner (Marilyn Manson) as the Queen of hearts. This movie is being written and directed by Jeremy Tarr. This film is described as a modern-day retelling of Alice in Wonderland in which a girl enters a fantasy land after a car accident puts her into a coma. The actors will play multiple roles, appearing in both the real world and the fantasy world.

With this version, the cartoon version, three earlier versions, and an earlier tv version it's a sure bet another one will not be made any time soon.

I think Hounddog was the only other movie offer she had this year. There were no other movies in her near future being planned. The Alice movie was planned in 2004 with expected release in 2006. It was canned before she did Hounddog. The Gordon movie was most likely canned before Hounddog. I don't ever see a sequel to War of the Worlds. So what else did she have?


"It's a beautiful film about coming up from adversity and how someone can rise above it all and live again," says Fanning, who is inspired by former child star Jodie Foster.

"She was an actress when she was my age and then an adult actress and is a director now as well, and I would love to do that."


Her next film will take her into much darker territory, playing the lead role as an abused child who finds solace in Elvis's music in a still-untitled drama co-starring Robin Wright Penn.

The confronting movie is set to feature at 2007's Sundance Film Festival, and is courting controversy already for its rape scene.



Dear Cynthia:

Sorry I've been away for a while. Business.

I think I heard something about that "other" Alice movie, but I hardly think it qualifies as a true "Wonderland" film. Not with Marilyn Manson!! You know, it's been a quasi-tradition since the 1930s that every generation has their own "Alice" movie. They've usually been humorous hodge-podges of random scenes from the books with a cast of current A-listers. Even Disney's animated classic was largely in that category!

The DreamWorks edition was going to be something new. It was to have been a two-part effort with each edition faithfully following the sequence of events as Lewis Carroll wrote them. Personally, I think it was an excellent idea. I'm sure that kids would have really liked it. They would have loved Dakota as Alice just as they'll probably love her as Fern.

That's unless, of course, the shadow of Lewellen falls on them. Once it does, the glittering image of Dakota Fanning will vanish. So will her traditional fan base and box office.

Damn it, Cynthia; I can't tell you how much it still grieves me to say that! I had really come to love and admire that child as so many other adults had. She was such a shining kid who could win hearts for all the right reasons. Jail's too good for the scheming grown-ups who corrupted all that.

P.S. I'm pretty sure that last quote of Dakota's in the Courier dated back to well before "Hounddog" was filmed... both on the movie synopsis and her admiration for Jodie Foster. I still can't help but wonder if a "Taxi Driver" analogy was a major factor in how they induced her into compliance. Do you think that the seeds of all this might have been planted during her first appearance in an "R" rated film?... which also starred Robert DeNiro?!


I found out about the other Alice movie on a message board dated sometime in 2005. There were three version in the planning stages. One with Dakota, one with Manson, and one not yet cast. All three were set to be released in 2006/2007. I think that's why it was canned. All of the references to Jodie Foster are from the interviews from Austrilia in the past week.

Dakota 'just a normal kid'
By Jonathon Moran
November 27, 2006 02:21pm
Article from: AAP

WHEN Dakota Fanning is not making a movie, the child star likes doing the normal things most other kids do.,23663,20828280-5007181,00.html

The 12-year-old star of Charlotte's Web likes watching TV and playing games on the computer.

"I can do acting as well and still be a normal kid," Fanning said today.

"I play with my sister and play on the computer and have TV shows that I like. It's the same thing as everybody else, except I like to do movies. My passion is movies like someone else here (in Australia), their passion might be cricket."

Looking ahead, Fanning has a number of films in the pipeline. She recently completed production on Hounddog, which also stars Robin Wright Penn, and will provide the voice for the animated feature Coraline.

"I know as I get older, I will be able to do different roles ... I will be able to do more things," said Fanning, who turns 13 in February.

"It is still exciting to do what I love and the roles will grow with me."


While many child stars lose their way later in life, Fanning said she did not believe it would happen to her.

Fanning said she hoped to follow in the footsteps of Jodie Foster -- another former child star -- and forge a successful career in movies as an adult.

"I have been acting in films since I was six so I haven't really had time to think about doing anything else," she said.

"I love acting.

"I know this is what I want to do for the rest of my life."



Dear Cynthia:

Except for the newest "Jodie Foster" reference, I found little in those articles beyond the standard human interest story. I still can't accept that "Alice in Wonderland" cancellation theory. When Spielberg takes on a project in earnest, no one's going to try and compete with him! That Marilyn Manson thing is a farce and, if it includes him, an ugly one besides! No, I think there's a much deeper reason. Whether it's connected to "Hounddog", directly or indirectly, is problematical. If anyone has an ear to DreamWorks' inner "workings", he sure doesn't report to me!

The Kid is in Japan today for another promotion. Then on to New York and Los Angeles for more of the same. Still no word on any premiere of that "other" movie in those cities as originally announced.

By the way, did you watch "Oprah Winfrey" yesterday? I did... for the first time ever! If you did, what were your impressions? I'd like your opiniion first. I tried to be as dispassionate as possible, but something about Dakota still caught my eye. Comments?

P.S. The fact remains that she still has no major future projects announced. Since she made "I Am Sam", this is unprecedented. She also remains on the "Frigid Fifty" list. God! All these entertainment outlets that I was happily ignorant of before Dakota came along!

P.P.S. The Sundance Film Festival will announce it's line-up "in December".


I watched the Oprah show and she seemed fine. Very happy and excited. I have it recorded is there something to look for?

Sundance annouced last night that Hounddog will be in the festival in Jan 2007.,1,2320413.story?coll=env-home-subfeaturebar

It was chosen as one of 16 out of 996 full length films. They still haven't worked out some issues regarding the name but this will be settled before the festival.

The first promotional photo:

I think it's going to do well at the festival and win a few awards. They should be able to start talking about the movie soon and we will all know more details about what happened. A promotional site will be online soon.


Dear Cynthia:

Of course it will do well. This is the Sundance Film Festival we're talking about. It's the most elite-progessive festival there is outside of Cannes. Nor is it accidental that it's premiering there. In late January, it'll be late enough not to adversely effect the profits to "Charlotte's Web" and still obscure enough to the general public to minimally impact the merchandising and DVD sales.

In addition, the only films it'll be up against are the standard fare: Half-cocked basement-filmed ramblings, degenerate tragedies, anti-American political "documentaries", pretentious foreign pot-boilers and, of course, other epics of sexual depravity. How can "The Untitled Dakota Fanning Project" miss?

As to the Oprah show. Cynthia; I honestly tried to be open and fair as I watched it. It was largely fluff, of course, but that's only to be expected. Yet, on about three occasions, I noticed something odd about Dakota.

True, she was all smiles and giggles, as usual. However, on those occasions when she apparently didn't think the camera was on her or that the segment hadn't quite begun, there was another look to her. I think I mentioned how, in one recent shot in "Teen Vogue" magazine, she had a troubling blank and haunted look. Well, that's what I saw.

Most particular was at the very beginning of the closing segment where they were all standing together at the front of the stage. Note the look on her face a split-second before the smiling mask falls into place. Note also that, after a brief farewell, she was heading down the runway and off-set while the others were still hugging and kissing.

Cynthia; I understand that she was putting on her best look for the camera. She's very experienced in these sort of things. "Putting your best foot forward" is something we all do around others. It was what I saw before it that disturbed me. Not a wry smile, a friendly comment aside or a look of serious thought... this was like the visage of a zombie.

Maybe it was the camera angle. Maybe it was my angle of view. Possibly... but I didn't like it. One thing seems evident, though. She really didn't want to be there. When, suddenly, did something she once so loved to do become a burdensome task? That's NOT the old Dakota.


I didn't see anything wrong with the way she acted. While the adults were talking she looked a little out of place and maybe a little uncomfortable but that was expected. She wasn't being included and just sat there. During the ending Oprah had her arm wrapped around her the whole time but she was smiling and laughing. This was filmed days before she left for Australia so I'm sure she had a million things on her mind.

"Good Morning America" Mon, Dec 4
"Regis and Kelly" Mon, Dec 4
"The View" Fri, Dec 8
"Tonight Show With Jay Leno" Wed, Dec 13
"Ellen DeGeneres" Thu, Dec 14

I haven't seen a bad news story regarding the movie. No mention of any of the scenes other than the rape. No bad reports about Dakota or the way she has been acting. Every picture or television appearance so far she is happy, smiling, and having a good time. She doesn't look any different than she did before Hounddog.

Honey Do

Ever seen a sad stripper or a bummed out porn actress when the lights are on them? Dakota is no diffent than any other whore.


Dear Cynthia:

Thanks for the info on Dakota's promotional appearances. I wasn't aware of the Jay Leno appearance. However, I had it that she was to appear with Ellen Degenerate on the 7th, not the 14th. The other spots were known to me.

If she's going to say anything about the "new, improved version" of "Hounddog" (or whatever it'll be called now), it'll probably be on Ellen or The View. Being heavily "progressive" shows in hosts and audiences, they'll be the most supportive venues that her handlers could hope for. She won't get any embarassing questions about how it was filmed.

Cynthia: The first two scenes that I mentioned on "Oprah Winfrey" might have been flukes, tricks of light, angle of camera, etc. Possibly. That last one, though, was held for a solid second before Oprah started to talk. You could see the "mask", as I said, fall into place. The difference between the smiling little girl and what preceded it was just too dramatic to ignore or excuse.

Thinking back on it, that expression might have been the same had a man in the audience suddenly stood up and exposed himself! Obviously, that DIDN'T happen. So... what could have brought that tragic look to her face in that unguarded moment?

You know that my outlook is that no child- and not a few grown women- could have gone through the experiences she did on that set without incurring emotional problems and mental stress. I do not waver from that. While I'm not claiming this incident as proof or vindication, I still think that it's noteworthy.

Please remember, Cynthia, that my prime concern is that children have a happy and well-rounded upbringing; morally as well as physically. That means that they should be allowed the innocence of childhood and not have it torn from them by exploiters... and worse. The sexualization of children in the popular culture threatens all this. That threat is ever-growing. Now comes "Hounddog".

Again; it's about a lot more than one child, however prominent she may be. But one is enough. This is one worth fighting over.


Controversy swirls around Dakota Fanning’s next film, which will play the Sundance Film Festival in January. Officially called “Untitled Dakota Fanning Project” but known as Hounddog (“I’m supposed to say Untitled, but it’s basically Hounddog,” Fanning told me), the movie stars the preternaturally mature child actor as a girl who gets raped and then finds solace in music. “She overcomes all the hard things in her life through Elvis and through the blues and Big Mama Thornton, who was the first one to record Hound Dog,” Fanning told me today at the Charlotte’s Web junket (she plays Fern in the nicely done live action film). “I overcome these things through Elvis and through the bluesy versions of Elvis as well.”

The controversy comes because of claims that the rape scene is too graphic for the participation of a 12 year old, and there’s additional outrage about reports of other scenes where Fanning is running around in her underwear. Fanning said that the brouhaha was actually a bunch of hooey. “It was gossip, a rumor, like a lot of things about people are. It’s really a beautiful story and I really hope that a lot of people get to see it and I hope that a lot of people learn from it. I had a lot of fun doing it. It’s really no different than playing any other character – I’m still not playing myself. I get to experience different things people go through without going through them myself, which is no different from watching a news story and learning from that. It’s an emotionally moving movie, and I hope people enjoy it.”

What seemed to really get under her skin was the idea that she’s some kind of shrinking violet when it comes to movies with rough elements. “It’s no darker than Hide and Seek or Man on Fire! I still am going through difficult things in those films as well, and nobody seemed to talk about that!”


Good God, Cynthia. Where did you find THAT website? Even if we accept it as genuine, it still doesn't tell us much. We know that the movie has been extensively reworked and that a title change is in the offing. With the bad odor that the name "Hounddog" as come to engender (and with good reason!) it's little wonder that they're changing it.

Now, with it's release at the Sundance imminent, they're going to have to "rehabilitate" it. If this "interview" was real, then it represents the first open attempt since the blackout to deal with the issue. Is Dakota being coached now to put on an "awww, it warn't THAT bad" kind of schpiel? It'll still be interesting to see if somewhere down the road she gets asked some tough, pointed questions about what happened on that set.

She's not liable to get pinned down on any of those shows she's scheduled for! However, if she's been sent out now to deal, to any degree, with the problem of "Hounddog", it'll happen with Ellen or The View. Those will be the friendliest and most progressive forums to do so. There, she'll be able to make some innocuous statements and be lauded for her "courage" without anything in-depth.

This is an interesting development. Let's see how they've finally decided to market depravity as virtue this time. However, the idea of using a child to do it sickens me almost as much as what they made her do in the first place.


Once again you don't have your facts straight. The name not being listed has nothing to do with the content of the movie or how it was filmed. At issue is the Elvis music and the estates willingness to let them use his music in the film and the money needed to get the licenses. How do you know it was reworked? There was no reason to rework the film because they didn't film anything that was illegal. No one was nude, no one was in explicit sexual scenes, and no one was forced to do anything that was obscene. I don't understand why you don't get that. What was in the script is not what was filmed. There you go again with the media blackout theory. Name one other small budget movie that has gotten as much attention as this movie. What questions need to be asked? Yes she did film a rape scene that will last about a minute showing facial expressions and hands. There were some scenes where she is wearing nothing but underwear. Big deal, nothing that hasn't been in other movies. Where are the eyewitnesses that are willing to testify that what they did was in anyway illegal? An entire filming crew and not one person has gone to the media to report what they saw that proves the film makers did anything illegal. The district attorney's office reviewed the uncut film before it was sent away to be edited and talked to local crew members and did not determine that any laws were broken. It doesn't matter what side of the river it was filmed on because the statements from crew members would be the same no matter which county they are in when they gave their statements. Most of the local crew members live in New Hanover County not Brunswick. The studio and the production offices were in New Hanover. Everyday they would drive across the bridge and down River Road to the Orton Plantation then back to Wilmington at the end of the day. It's about a thirty minute ride. Ben David's office would have as much authority as Rex Gore's since the finished film was transported back into Wilmington at the end of the day.


Cynthia: All I can say is that you continue to look at this through rose-tinted blinders. I've answered all your talking points before- again and again- and shown you their fallacies and factual ambiguities. That last post was just a frenzied blizzard of previously discredited non-facts. I was hoping that you'd provide something useful or thought-provoking this time.


What discredited facts?

The are negotiating for Elvis music? That's a fact. Go back to my previous post. “I’m supposed to say Untitled, but it’s basically Hounddog,”“She overcomes all the hard things in her life through Elvis and through the blues and Big Mama Thornton, who was the first one to record Hound Dog,” “I overcome these things through Elvis and through the bluesy versions of Elvis as well.” That's because they don't have the rights yet.

They didn't film anything illegal. Read the statement from Ben Davis. Look at the FACT the movie was finished and released to a film festival.

NOT ONE member of the crew has gone to the media and even you can't deny that. Maybe this could explain your media blackout theory.

"Dakota was not nude, kids were not having sex, and no one was forced to be in the movie they were all there because they wanted to be acting in the movie." - "They will never find anything to file charges on"

You can give up on your theory that this is all part of some big conspiracy by the hollywood bigwigs to promote the ongoing sexualization of kids.


This was a small budget film maker with no major studio backing.

It was financed with private money.

It was filmed at a rental facility that has no ties to any major studio.

Most of the crew members are non-union independant contractors with no ties any studio.

We have been over this again and again. NO ONE, not you, not the Bensens, not the crew members, not the DA, not the media, not the actors, or anyone else has produced evidence or eyewitnesses that PROVES anything illegal was filmed during the making of this movie.

Why are you still in denial?


As I've noted before, Fanning is about 12 going on 35 -- preternaturally well-spoken and worldly, as self-assured a leading lady as virtually any others I've chatted with over the last 18 months of covering this beat. Her precociousness was rumored to have possibly gotten ahead of her earlier this year when it was reported that her character in the upcoming film Hounddog (or, as officially noted in the current Sundance Film Festival lineup, The Untitled Dakota Fanning Project) is sexually abused; an abiding controversy erupted that Fanning blew off at Sunday's premiere.

"I don't think that anybody should be talking about it yet because nobody's seen it yet, you know?" she said cheerfully. "It's a wonderful film, and I'm really proud to be in it. I can't wait for people to see it."

I asked her if the film and its content are as tough as people have described it. Fanning lowered her chin, looked straight at me and shook her head.

"No," she said, then laughed. "No, it's not. It's really a beautiful film and it's great to be a part of it. That was all blown out of proportion, so... It's great."

OK, then. That should stem the stand-by line at its Sundance screenings, which Fanning said she does plan to attend. "I've never been before," she told me. "I'm super excited; I've never been skiing or anything. I don't know if I'll have time, but if I have a chance, I'd love to try. I hear it's really hard though." She wobbled, grimaced and mimed squaring herself on invisible ski poles. It was too adorable to bear, really.


Dear Cynthia:

"They didn't film anything illegal." What you mean is, "They didn't preserve anything illegal"... and for obvious reasons. Nor will their film have recorded the behind-the-scenes activity that is also a prime source of contention. Nor will the production staff admit to any of it... again for obvious reasons.

As to your "facts":

1. It WAS a small time "indie" company. No major studio with any respectability at all would have attempted something like this. Only a sleazy, degraded outfit known for it's straight-to-DVD sex epics- something like "Full Moon Films" and a degenerate writer like Deborah Kampmeier- could have conceived of and brought to fruition such a project.

2. It WAS filmed with private (and anonymous) money or from foreign management/production firms like Germany's "Cineric". All of them bailed out because of the content. That's why the project was NINE YEARS in the making. Even then, the last bunch (identity unknown) left them high and dry right in the middle of the shooting! Why? They...Found...Out! This was not only borderline kiddie-porn. This was graphic child sex featuring the most popular child in the world! Only a last minute dollop from some also-anonymous investors (hurriedly arranged by Jen Gatien of the production staff and her likewise shady friend Lawrence Robins) allowed the film's completion.

3. Screen Gems IS a subsidiary of Columbia/TriStar. They often rent out their facilities to production companies. Providing technical support to these efforts is what they do and have historically done for decades. It's their business. It does not, however, morally exonerate them from the use those clients make of their hired resources. See my previous post.

4. Some of the personnel were independent contractors, some were staff members of "Full Moon Films", some were Screen Gems technicians. What about it? I couldn't care less how many were union or not. It's irrelevant. "Concerned Citizen's" remarks merely reflected the usual union activist take on such matters. Nor am I anti-union, if that's what you're trying to infer.

5. Yes. We HAVE been over and over this. The original screenplay exists. The statements of the technical personnel who witnessed these events (and related them at their personal risk) exist as well. The previous efforts of Kampmeier and Company are a matter of public record. So is the acceptance of the story by noted and respected Hollywood watchers and columnists. The disappearance of "Full Moon" from the internet and the media blackout which followed did happen. Only now, after four month's of laboring in the dark, are they slowly emerging with a new re-edited and titled version.

I'm very much afraid, Cynthia, that it is YOU who are in denial... as you have always been.

P.S. That excerpt from "The Reeler" was just another cut-and-dried statement, virtually identical to a couple she's recently made. Talking points, Cynthia!... direct from the public relations man's desk. They know that they now will have to say SOMETHING on occasion, so this is going to be their line... delivered from a "too adorable to bear" source. Dakota's only saying what she's been told to say when questioned about "Hounddog" and where the subject can't be avoided. Anyone who seriously believes that ancient "12-going-on-40" hype needs to get a big reality check.


Correction: See my last post on the "Nice Try" thread on this website for my comments in response to "Concerned Citizen".


If you expect me to believe hearsay then I want to "hear" what they said. The crew members that walked off the set could have posted an anonymous statement as to what they witnessed. Their identity didn't have to be made public. They could have called or wrote a letter to the media. If the events are as bad as you claim and they wanted to make the public aware of the events that occured on the set then they didn't do a very good job. The only reference to these people is on this site and no where else. How do I know there are people that walked off the set? I've been told that only one person walked off the set because he was upset about the way he was being treated and had nothing to do with the rape scene. That's a major contradiction and I have yet to see evidence to support the claims that are on this website. One pissed off crew members can cause a lot of harm.

I also believe the film makers have remained silent to milk the controversy and get more attention for the movie. You can't buy this kind of publicity. They knew all along that the no legal action would be taken. You might be right that Dakota is being somewhat coached based on the way she responded to the name not being listed. She went both ways on that one. It might be Elvis or a bluesy version of Elvis but I think she is very well aware of the controversy and what has been said about her or her mother. She is simply addressing the rumors in her own little way the best she can.

I also believe that she and her mother wanted to do this movie because of the controversy that would follow. This puts her on the short list of young actresses that have done sexually charged movies at a young age. Jodie Foster, Brooke Shields, Jena Malone, and now Dakota Fanning. I think this was a strategic career move that will insure she gets more adult roles as she ages and isn't stigamized by the kid friendly movies she is so well known for which causes problems for most child actors. It took Drew Barrymore years to shake off that little girl image from ET and she went down the wrong path in life trying to deal with that but was able to recover.

I also think that the controversy was blown way out of proportion. What is written in the script and what appears in the movie is not what happens on the set. The scenes are pieced together with a bunch of smaller scenes, close-ups, and background elements to form the vision that is in the final scene. You don't have to be raped to film a rape scene. What Christoph Sanders did was lay on her but in no way was sexual. He was just as scared as she was being in front of a film crew under the hot lights having to perform a difficult scene.

If you want to convince me that something bad happened on the set during the filming of the movie you need to come up with more than rumors, speculation, and excerpts from a script that may or may not have been filmed. They can't even say for sure that the scenes were actually filmed. So much for that inside source. Considering most of the crew members are in Wilmington they should know every aspect of what happened on the set and not just speculation of what they think happened on the set.

I managed to get all kinds of information and I don't even work for the film industry. Some of it is contradictory but enough to form the opinion that nothing illegal occured during the filming. It may be in bad taste or morally wrong but that doesn't make it in any way illegal. If more information was presented, eyewitness accounts, and a more credible source then maybe I could have been convinced. Hearsay, speculation, and coming from a radio show just doesn't do it.


Dear Cynthia:

I noted with interest your attempt here to revive the long-shelved argument that "Hounddog" was all done with deliberate, marketable controversy in mind and that this has all been a calculated publicity stunt. We kicked that one out a long time ago... but, okay. Let's run with it.

As a preliminary; I don't accept your drumbeat assertions that nothing "bad" happened on that set. Our ideas of "bad", "good" and "credibility" are at such wide variance that we'll never agree anyway. I'm convinced that "bad" things did happen, so naturally I can't accept the premise of a "good" film being presented in a totally false light for publicity's sake.

Besides, "good" filmmakers would not have let Dakota suffer unjust defamation for months (or for a moment!) to promote ANYTHING. Nor would they have to with Dakota in it; not with her box office. Also; would they have done such a thing PRIOR to the premiere of her big Christmas release?... the much discussed and anticipated "Charlotte's Web"?

Hardly, Cynthia. The very idea is ludicrous.


I didn't say the exploitation controversy was a calculated publicity stunt. I'm sure no one expected the accusations of child exploitation. It wasn't me that brought that up earlier it was your friend John that said it was a publicity stunt. I said her mother was was aware of the attention the movie would get and the fact that she did such a movie at a young age. Everyone had to know there would be controversy for using a 12 year old in a rape scene and scenes where she would be in nothing but underwear. You can't make a movie like this and not have controversy. Had the accusations of exploitation not come up do you really believe there wouldn't have been some controversy around the movie? Forget all the accusations, claims by crew members, and the blue line site. Tell me there wouldn't be some controversy for using a kid in a rape scene. They knew there would be controversy before the first frame of film was produced. The same kind of controversy as Taxi Driver, Lolita, or Pretty Baby. They also expected to have the movie released at the AFI festival way before web was released.

You didn't address the other things I said. Why wasn't more information put forward and statements made available by the crew members? If you really expected legal action it would have come out at some point. The names of the people involved would have become known at some point. Details of what happened would have all come out and everything would become public record. In order to put people in jail you need a trial and in a trial all the details would be made public. Remember the Michael Jackson trial? This would be almost as big as that trial. The media would have been all over this with graphic details from eyewitnesses and the entire movie would have used as evidence. You can't have it both ways. Accuse people of breaking the law then not come forward to support the claims. Why didn't they come forward or why wasn't more details made public? Tre said that even if he could find someone to come forward it wouldn't matter. The law says that anyone that witnessed a crime involving a minor is required to report it to authorities so why didn't they report what they witnessed? In fact every crew member that worked on this movie should have reported what they witnessed if they believed the film makers were breaking the law. All the postings I have read by crew members have said that no laws were broken.

I do know people were not happy working on the movie. The production staff was unprepared and somewhat unproffesional. What did the crew members expect from a small budget indie film? All they had to do was go online and read the press release from "Virgin" and they would have known about all the problems that crew had with the director. The money problems, crew member's threats to walk off, the legal problems with permits, and the cops shutting down the production at the end. Everyone knew what they would have to deal with if they got involved with this movie.

The bottom line is that not enough evidence was presented, no one came forward to make a formal complaint, and there are too many people that said nothing illegal occured.

Case Closed


Dear Cynthia:

Using children like this is more than just a matter of controversy. It is a matter of moral outrage. Decent people just don't use children in such a manner. Period. That her parents and handlers must have known beforehand, as you said, that putting their once-loved child into much a scene would (obviously!) result in her defamation, and yet did it anyway... what does that say about them? What does this say about the guidance and moral upbringing she was being provided with when they made her compliant in such an endeavor?

Here is the heart of my argument, Cynthia. For the sake of their own gain, the adults around Dakota- the very same people that she should have been able to look to for love and guidance- PROSTITUTED her. Almost literally! They not only milked her box office, they sacrificed her once-shining name... and threw it into the trashheap. She will never know the heartwarming level of love and devotion she once knew (and earned!) among decent family people again. Obviously, they're hoping that a successfully marketed "Charlotte's Web" and a now heavily revamped form of "Hounddog" (through a limited release), plus public ignorance abetted by a subtle disinformation campaign (with Dakota again complicit!) will mitigate it all.

Truth is their enemy. I intend to see that these truths do not go away. As I've said, it goes far beyond one child actress... especially one who is now likely so corrupted and mixed-up from her handlers' misattentions, that she has no firm sense left of right and wrong, truth and lies or good and evil. I grieve for her loss and, with her, the end of all the great good she might have accomplished for her peers by her once glittering example.

She might, indeed, have become the "Shirley Temple" of her generation... a name that only moral cynics despise. She might have imdued all those children growing up with her with a sense of goodness and values when they needed them the most. Who knows? They might have grown up to become the new "Greatest Generation"; having been led out of an era of crime, moral ambiguity and foreign menace like the first one was. And, as with my father's generation, with a little girl leading them on their first steps.

All this Dakota Fanning might have accomplished. She held, for a brief and fateful moment, that priceless opportunity for true greatness right in the palm of her little hand. She was, indeed, the right kid in the right place at the right time.

All she needed was to have good, loving people around her to provide that basic and vital love and support that any child needs. She needed them as responsible adults who would care for her as a beloved child sooner than as a remarkably successful actress... and an immense source of income.

From what they've done to her now, they may have sacrificed it all. For themselves, they deserve nothing but the utmost contempt. Dakota's defamation is rightfully their own. Yet, it is she who will bear it. It will be a tragic end to what might have been an unparalleled legacy. For the lure of a cheap brass idol called "Oscar", her guardians became her predators and destroyed all that she could have been.

This is where it ends. Story concluded.


Dear Cynthia: I hope you won't consider this presumptuous of me... but have you run into John or his darling daughter Madison elsewhere on the internet? I asked Capri about them, but apparently they left no back address. I think we can both agree that they are remarkable people! If you run across them somewhere, I'd consider it a personal favor if you'd direct me. Thanks.


I will keep an eye out for them. It's easy to pick out Madison by the comments.


"In three months I'll be an official teenager," the delicate, fair-haired Fanning told Reuters, her feet folded beneath her during an interview to publicize her starring role in the children's classic "Charlotte's Web," which opens Friday.

Next month Fanning will be seen in a grittier role, portraying a rape victim in "Hounddog," a drama about a troubled young girl set against the backdrop of the rise of Elvis Presley.

Fanning is proud of both films and sees her involvement as part of her growing process.

"I believe that I'm kind of in the same stage as Fern is," Fanning said. "Kind of growing up, between being a little girl and an official teenager.

"But also we're a little bit different. Fern is starting to like boys and I'm really not. We're also kind of just growing up, going through more physical changes. We're getting taller, getting more mature and thinking about things in different ways than we did when we were younger."

Fanning finished shooting "Charlotte's Web" about 18 months ago. Since then she completed filming "Hounddog," written and directed by Deborah Kampmeier, which has caused a stir because of speculation on how the sexual assault is portrayed.

"It is a Southern story about a young girl going through some tough things and overcoming adversity and coming out as a better person, kind of through music and Elvis Presley and that movement in the early '60s," Fanning said.


"It was a wonderful film to be a part of. I hope that people learn things from it and I hope that it touches people. I'm really proud of it and I can't wait for it to come out in Sundance (Film Festival) in January."

"All the characters that I've done have been my age. I don't try to do anything that isn't realistic for my age to do," she said.

Fanning said she did not find the sexual content of "Hounddog" upsetting.

"That's what I love about acting, that I can relate to other people's situations through acting without actually going through that myself," she said.


Dear Cynthia:

Most people consider adolescence to begin at fourteen, but I won't argue that point. It's her inculcated idea of the "growing process" that's chilling. And to compare "Fern" to "Lewellen" in any capacity whatsoever is mindblowing. As to her not "starting to like boys yet"... these are the words of a child who learned what "boys" are all about in about the most despicable and degrading way possible.

And when she speaks of "adversity" and "coming out a better person"? From the original screenplay, we know all too well the forms her "adversity" takes. We also know that Lewellen's "better person" involves murderous revenge on her father and two children plus a quasi-lesbian relationship with her long-lost mother.

"Wonderful film", she says. Nothing that "isn't realistic for my age"! I don't know how many of those "unreal" comments, if any, were originally hers. About now, it doesn't matter much. It's becoming increasingly apparent that what we have here is a child who has been so mentally twisted by her users as to be incapable of normal, ethical thought.

Hollywood strikes again... and it's victims keep getting younger and younger.


Steve, yes I agree that Dakota has been defamed. She was defamed by people on the Internet such as yourself and by the people at Blue Line Radio. You all generated the controversy by making claims based on rumors and lies. You all didn't care about the welfare of Dakota. It was all about getting attention for your moral crusade.


I do care about her, Dave. Her and every other child who has been the victim or is in danger of being the victim of child porn or sexual exploitation. There can be little doubt that the adults around that child traded in her good name for future profits. In doing so, they also negated all of the fine things she once had come to represent and all she might have been. And more: By corrupting her, they attempted to corrupt her entire generation through her. They used the tremendous love that her peer-aged supporters had given her (and that she had fairly won)and, in essence, used it as a weapon against them.

Lies, deceit, pandering, vice, degeneracy...

Just about every moral sin in the book has been displayed by these people and by those others of the depraved trade that they pursue. Crimes against children that were virtually unknown in my own childhood are now inflicted on and portrayed on film by the children of today.

You call by activities a moral crusade. Fine. So do I. But I've also learned something that you haven't, something that my turbulent generation rejected of our fathers, but later came to know the truth of.

Causes are fine, but only when those causes rest firmly on a foundation of truth, justice and Faith. And, even then, people are more important than causes. This, in particular, was a lesson that we baby boomers were slow to absorb and only after much turmoil... turmoil that led to so many of the social ills we face today. These ills have brought us here to this forum.

And one other point. As people are more important than causes, so are children the most important of people. When adults see them being endangered, it is their duty to do what they can to intervene. I care about Dakota Fanning because she is an endangered child. That, by itself, is enough.


Oh, yes. Thank you, Cynthia! It shouldn't be too difficult to spot Madison, that's for sure. I think the term "sunny disposition" was invented with her in mind!


Dear Oll:

What is a "POV" (in the Army that means "prvately owned vehicle") and how is any of this the President's fault?! And how are George W's wartime security measures, mild in comparison to anything that Roosevelt, Lincoln or Davis did, a negative factor in child protection? Other than, of course, their having prevented in God knows how many cases, the wanton slaughter of many of those children?

And, once again, there was NO "welfare worker" on the set of "Hounddog" and for the reasons that Tre points out. There was only Dakota's private tutor, Jan Cerwonka, who graciously undertook the schooling of the other two children as well. She, the kids and those few technicians who came to Blue Line Radio with the screenplay copies were probably the only innocents on that despicable movie set.

P.S. Tre: I got an email from Paul Petersen the day before yesterday. He and his wife are going to New York for New Year! Boy, would I like to do that one time before I croak!! Well, God bless him!

Tre Benson

Jdoll had you an effective email address then I could enlighten you on my rules to my blogsite.

You are indeed ignorant, but that is humorous sometimes. What ticks me off is your ignorance coupled with your arrogance.

I delete your post to save you embarrassment.


Dear Jdoll:

1. Never heard of that series.

2. If the reaction to Pearl Harbor and 9/11 was hysteria, then so be it. I think that things like that are worthy of strong emotion... and vigorous reaction.

3. To accuse others who retaliate against aggressive and murderous dictators as "communist" is not only deceptive, but hypocritical to the extreme. How is defending ourselves against radical Moslems any different from defending against fascists or bolsheviks?

4. Quoting from "Julius Caesar" (himself something of a despot!) seems pretty ludicrous in this context.

5. How has this got anything to do with "Hounddog" and child sexual exploitation?

Dear Tre: I sure hope that poor guy in Lillington regains his "functionality" after that ill-fated rendezvous with Miss Arnold. What a lesson for him in human relations! Lillington used to be such a nice little town!


PS: Sorry Tre....
Did not know it was such a touchy subject.
(Read PM)


Dear Cynthia: Thank you for the websites. I was having trouble finding "Premiere" magazine. This saves me a trip to Barnes & Noble! Seriously though; thanks and have a happy new year.

Dear Jdoll: To parallel the career of Jodie Foster was probably the cardinal selling point they used on Dakota, Miss Foster being her favorite actress. As I've said before, they probably never told her about the "other things" that happened to her as a result of that picture (murderous stalkers and emotional problems) or the fact that Jodie Foster never had to perform actual sex enactments on the set. If Dakota's career continues into adulthood on this basis, it's going to come with a very heavy price tag. That tag will include the forfeiture of her good name and all the phenominal love she had won worldwide from young and old alike. She will have gained the world at the expense of her soul.

Once again: Who would have believed that Dakota Fanning could have fallen that far, that soon... and that way?

Joshua Enos

I am not just against child actors over the age of two and under the age of 18 performing sexual nude scenes, I am against minors over the age of two performing any nude scenes in any context, regardless of how tastefully it's shown. A scene showing a boy quickly baring his bottom as he pulls up his underpants that omits his genitalia is enough to be illegal and banned in my opinion. Who is with me on this?


I am, Josh... and if for no other reason than the fact that such scenes will inspire deviants in their twisted obsessions. Children are in enough danger due to rampant and easily obtained porn. When filmmakers started to present children in "peekaboo" scenes (that's the term!), they started to push back the hazy legal limits. It then bacame inevitable that something like "Hounddog" (at least, in it's original form) would occur. Now, we're faced with the spectre of what is essentially child pornography gone mainstream! Yes, I'm definitely with you on that.

Joshua Enos

I am not against child actors performing "innocent" nude scenes that omit the genitalia because of how it may titillate pedophiles. I am against child actors performing such scenes out of respect for the dignity of the child, regardless of whether or not pedophiles will get titilated by such scenes. What most people don't realize is the fact that a child doesn't have to be sexual in his state of nudity for them to feel sexually humiliated should someone see them naked without their permission.

Tre Benson

Teen, preteen `model' sites busted: Florida firm's owners face child porn charges for provocative photos of kids

MSNBC - December 1, 2006


The operators of dozens of teen and preteen "modeling sites" that critics say are nothing more than eye candy for pedophiles have been indicted by a federal grand jury in Alabama for allegedly trafficking in "visual depictions of minors engaging in sexually explicit conduct."

The indictment, unsealed this week in Birmingham, Ala., charges Webe Web Corp. of Fort Lauderdale, Fla., and its principals, Marc Evan Greenberg and Jeffrey Robert Libman, with 80 counts of conspiracy and interstate trafficking of the images of teen and preteen girls on dozens of Web sites operated by the company. Both men were arrested Tuesday in Fort Lauderdale and are due to be arraigned on Friday.

Photographer Jeff Pierson of Brookwood, Ala., also was charged with two counts of using a computer to "transport child pornography in interstate commerce" from January 2003 through 2004. Authorities said Pierson is cooperating with prosecutors.

"The images charged are not legitimate child modeling, but rather lascivious poses one would expect to see in an adult magazine," U.S. Attorney Alice H. Martin said in a statement announcing the indictments and the closure of all the Webe Web sites. "Here lewd has met lucrative, and exploitation of a child's innocence equals profits."

In an e-mail interview, Martin told that prosecutors will press charges against the defendants for photos showing the young girls scantily clothed but not nude under a federal statute that deems images that "show lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area" to be child pornography.

No nudity, but `sexually suggestive poses'

"There are no semi-nude or nude images," she said. "The children are dressed in underwear, adult lingerie, high heels, etc., and placed in sexually suggestive poses which focus the viewer's attention on the genital or pubic area. Some are posed with facial expressions and in positions that suggest a willingness to engage in sexual activity."

If convicted of all charges, Greenberg and Libman could be sent to prison for up to 20 years and fined up to $250,000 for each count. They also face forfeiture of all proceeds from the Web sites.

Phone calls to the company offices and the homes of Libman and Greenberg were not answered. interviewed the woman whose complaint triggered the investigation of Pierson and Webe Web, who agreed to talk on the condition that neither she nor her daughter be identified.

She said she naively answered an online advertisement for preteen models several years ago so that her then-10-year-old daughter could begin to build a portfolio.

She and her daughter drove to Pierson's home studio, where they met the photographer, his wife and the couple's 12-year-old daughter.

"They seemed like perfect people," she recalled. "They said she would have a Web site so that people looking for models would offer her jobs."

Mother recounts her horror

The woman said that everything seemed on the up and up during the initial visit, which included some test shots of the girl wearing different outfits, so she signed a contract.

But on the second visit, she said, Pierson kept her out of the studio, asking her to remain in an adjacent room where she could see him but not her daughter.

"He said it makes the models nervous," she said.

The woman said she sat chatting with the photographer and his wife during the daylong shoot and had no inkling what was going on until she walked into the studio when Pierson had left the room for a moment and saw her daughter wearing only a thong and a halter top.

"That feeling is a feeling I don't wish on anybody," she said.

The woman said that she and her daughter were frightened to leave because Pierson had earlier displayed a handgun he kept in the house, so they endured several more hours in the studio.

"I said `We can't do this,' but my daughter said she was scared to leave and let's get through this and then we won't come back," she said. "It was really hard."

Once they left, the woman said she "went straight to the FBI" in Birmingham and told them what Pierson had done.

Authorities seek other photographers

It is not known how many children Pierson photographed for Webe Web, but Martin said he was responsible for about 30 percent of the photos on the 60 or so sites that the company hosted from the Netherlands and has told prosecutors that the company paid him $270,000 for his work. Martin said investigators were continuing to try to identify other photographers who worked for the company.

Webe Web first drew scrutiny in 2001, when NBC's Miami affiliate, WTVJ, reported that the company was operating a handful of Web sites featuring young girls wearing bathing suits and other skimpy outfits and charging "members" to view additional photos.

Webe Web representatives defended the business model, denying the sites were aimed at pedophiles, but the controversy snowballed, and soon the company was featured in unflattering spots on national news programs like "Dateline NBC" and "Oprah."

The sites also attracted the attention of Rep. Mark Foley, R-Fla., who in 2002 introduced a bill called the Child Modeling Exploitation Prevention Act to attempt to tighten restrictions on the sale of photographs of minors. The bill died in committee amid objections from civil libertarians and commercial interests.

Foley resigned from Congress in September after it was reported that he exchanged inappropriate e-mails with a teenage page.

The filing of criminal charges against Webe Web is at least the second federal criminal case brought against operators of Web sites featuring minors in provocative poses. Two Utah men, Matthew Duhamel and Charles Granere, are facing federal child pornography charges for a child modeling site that featured minors in lingerie.

Will juries buy `child porn' argument?

But Frederick Lane, a lawyer who specializes in Internet issues and author of "Obscene Profits: The Entrepreneurs of Pornography in the Cyber Age," said it is an open question whether the hardball legal tactic will prove effective.

"It quickly gets into a legal gray area, like parents taking photos of their kids, so prosecutors have been reluctant to use it as a tool," he said. "... From what I've seen, there's too much gray area there in terms of persuading a jury that the photographs actually constitute child pornography."

But he said that the "financial piece" — the fact that Webe Web charged customers $20 a month to subscribe to each girl's Web site — may help the prosecution overcome that obstacle.

"That's one of the things that is more persuasive to juries, a sense of exploitation of these girls," he said.

For the defense, he said, the argument likely will hearken back to the late Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart's oft-repeated comment about "hard-core" pornography: "I know it when I see it."

"For the defense point of view, the argument is, `Here is real child pornography, and that is not what this child is doing,'" he said.

No matter the outcome of the criminal case, it will do little to discourage other operators unless it leads to new legislation with clearer strictures against risqué photos of minors, said Don Austen, who has been active in pressuring ISPs to drop clients running preteen and teen modeling sites.

New laws needed, advocate says

"Just winning a case is not going to affect anything unless this brings to light what's going on," said Austen, who also runs the Thursday's Child hot line for teenage runaways.

He also said that while some defend the "modeling" sites as harmless, they desensitize the young girls to sex. He said he knows of two girls who started out as teen "models" on such Web sites that graduated into adult pornography after they turned 18.

"It's not just that she's feeling embarrassment and feeling used. ... It changes lives," he said.

The damage isn't exclusive to the children, said the woman who told authorities about Pierson.

She said she remains wracked with guilt because she didn't sense that she was putting her daughter at risk until it was too late. Now, she said, the girl is fearful of being alone with men and recently broke down when a male doctor sought to examine her.

"I blame myself so much, but I never dreamed that could happen," she said. "I thought love would protect her, but I guess I was just stupid."

Steven Mark Pilling

Dear Josh: Remember, I said "if for no other reason". I fully understand and agree with your recent point.

Dear Tre:

That was a very informative (and chilling!) article. Thanks. It still puzzles me, though, in the wake of this and other cases, that the Wilmington FBI office silently sat on it's hands in the "Hounddog" affair. As I had mentioned, I had higher hopes for them than I did for local authority, assuming that they would be unaffected by local political influences.

Was that naive of me? After all, any one single allegation evinced from those statements or the screenplay equals or surpasses in magnitude that of the examples you just mentioned. Or was it, perhaps, a matter of quantity? Yet, a motion picture, especially in DVD form, will also get wide distribution. Does the FBI also quail at the idea of challenging Hollywood interests?

That last part about the fearful little victim was only too familiar. I wonder just how many child actresses are in a similar, but unrevealed state? Whenever I think of Dakota's zombie-like stare on the "Oprah" show when she thought the camera was off- or those recent, dead-eyed photos of her- I can't help but wonder. I also wonder about Isabelle Fuhrman. Has anyone heard from her since "Hounddog" wrapped? And how many more?

Unpleasant thoughts.

P.S. IMDB just published a review of "Hounddog" from a recent private pre-Sundance screening. While trying to praise Dakota's performance, their remarks as to content reveal an underlying dismay of the proceedings that they obviously didn't want to go into great detail on. That they said as much as they did only confirms that the filmmakers edited that movie into disjointed pieces... and still couldn't "pretty" it up.

Tre Benson

When I spoke with the Agent in Charge of the State of NC I was asked "man to man" if Dakota was forced to do the movie. He did not want to argue about the law, he just wanted to know who the victim was and would that victim be a good witness for the State.

It appears that LE forgets that we all are the victims of the sexual expolitation of children. As we are when a child is beaten, neglected or denied a rightful education. Whether or not the child can speak, sit up straight, comes from a wealthy family, an impoverished background, it doesn't matter.

At least it doesn't to me.

This conversation was as much of an education as was my conversation with the Assistant District Attorney Connie Jordan. Both had distinctly different views but basically the same message, show me a victim.

In the Webe Models case a mother initiated charges. It was also a 4 year investigation.

My mind is as clear about the law as it always has been. I certainly am not going to produce a "Little Girls Gone Wild" video anytime soon because it is against the law. But I assure you it is only a matter of time before we see such a thing.

I stand by what I was told about crew walking off set due to the graphic sexual content of the rape scene. And since I have not worked in Wilmington since July (odd huh?) I understand their reluctance to come forward. I have given instructions to LE on what to ask, where to seek the answers and who best to interview. Not one of the specific names I gave LE were ever contacted. When I questioned this I was told there was no need, that they has spoken with the Director, Producers and the talent and gotten all the information they needed, including an edited copy of the film. No B-Roll, no out takes, no coverage, no video assist, no script notes. Nothing. What the prosecutor used to make her decision was given to her by those who should have been viewed as "suspects". Sort of like asking a deputy to re-enact on video the "take down" of an inmate (Gary Rummer) that suffered a fractured skull and broken neck as a result of the fall caused by the deputy and holding that re-enactment up as evidence that no violation of the law took place. Forgetting what his cellmate said, forgetting what the physical evidence shows. Let's look at a scripted, edited version of the action after it is cleared by the attorneys.

Thanks for keeping the message out there and hopefully others will see the world as we see it once this film has its release.


Video clips and director interview:

Click on >> on the video player until you get to Hounddog clip

Steven Mark Pilling

Dear Tre:

Thank you for the information. This is what I presumed from what you had mentioned before about the investigation... only worse. It's come down to the point that prosecutors (and on all levels) as well as law enforcement officials only go after the clear cut cases that they think they can win and leave the tough ones to themselves... unless there's a lot of outside prodding. I guess it's been like that for a while, huh?

What does this mean, then? Does one have to be politically connected (or be A political figure oneself) to get the wheels of justice moving? And for something as heinous as this?

When I think of all the time and trouble caused by Mike Nifong in that Duke LaCrosse case, the personal embarassment and pure hell suffered by three young men on the sole say-so of a known prostitute (not to mention the University's disgrace and disruptions) just to suit the political aims of an ambitious D.A., I see a legal circus of a kind on par with the Scopes "Monkey" Trial. And yet, in spite of law upon law enacted to protect children from predators on all levels and evidence and witnesses who could have made a landmark case in child protection, nothing was done except a sham "investigation"! Isn't there anyone, on any level, who's prepared to fight Hollywood for such a basic and fundamental cause?

We can sometimes see justice done against the small, back alley operatives. Yet the root cause of these crimes, the popular culture as directed by the film industry, is largely unimpeded. And now it's come to "Hounddog" and the virtual legitimazation of child porn.

As I've said, the fact that Full Moon Films was forced underground and eventually had to virtually sell their film to another group for financing the massive re-edits that were needed, is a small victory for public pressure born of rightful outrage. It is also a hollow one. The on-set abuses that occured remain unpunished. The next attempt will not include the security mistakes made by an amateurish indie outfit... which was the only reason that even so little was accomplished.

Almost 8,000 child actors are registered with the Screen Actor's Guild. What career options can they look forward to now? What career NECESSITIES, perhaps? Will it now come to a point, as it once did with young adult actresses and now DOES with underage actors in Europe, that deviant roles are ordained for future career prospects? Everytime I think of Daniel Radcliffe (loved by millions of kids for his "Harry Potter" role) now in a London stage play where he rides a horse naked for sexual gratification (it's called "Equs"...and he's 16!), I see the future that social progressives would ordain for all children.

This is the strategy of degenerate filmmakers, it seems. Take the most loved child actors from the few films that decent parents can take their children to see, coerce or corrupt them into sexually explicit roles while still underaged (the younger the better) and take in the profits from the "P3s"... the progressives, the punks and the perverts. Also, because of what those young actors once represented, they can be assured that their young fans will be drawn to seeing those films on the backs of their once-good names. Thus, impressionable children can be corrupted in turn and future audiences for future outrages be assured.

Profits from degeneracy and corruption, aimed at children and by utilizing other children... snowballing out of control. And to what ultimate end? When all children have come be defined as sex objects and their protection under law is effectively nullified, what happens to them and their future adult character? We might well ask the Romans of 400 A.D. the same question, while knowing beforehand the result.

Remember what Gibbons said in his classic "The Fall of the Roman Empire".

"The Roman world was laughing when it died."

This is why the case of "Hounddog" cannot be left alone... ever. Whether legal authority considers it so or not, it IS a landmark case as important as any since the Dred Scott decision. That ruling almost destroyed this nation by upholding slavery. This case involves the beginnings of the virtual sexual enslavement of our most innocent and helpless demographic. This WILL bring down this country if unopposed.

Not a pretty picture, huh? But it's exactly what we face. Through our blindness and inaction, we who consider ourselves to be good citizens have allowed it to come to this. Children- our own children and grandchildren- are now in a state of physical and moral peril to an extent never before conceived. Yet, we continue to spend our free time and pump our money into venues that forward this process. Everytime we buy from Death Row records, reward the sponsors of "Sex in the City"... or even take our kids to see "Harlot's Web", a film made by a child star who soon afterward endangered her little supporters by her immoral actions, we further the cause of their (and our) ultimate destruction.

As I have said, the purpose of adults, beyond all else, is the nurturing, protection and guidance of our children. When we fail in this, we fail in all.

P.S. Trey, you mentioned that you haven't worked in Wilmington since July 31st. Does that mean you no longer work at Blue Line Radio? Please advise.


"Does that mean you no longer work at Blue Line Radio? Please advise."

They own Blue Line Radio show and pay to air the show on the big talker. There is a disclaimer before the start of the show. The following is a paid advertisement and does no reflect on the views and opinions of the Big Talker FM. The show has continued on the air except for a couple of weekends when they were out of town. Next week they will have some new sound bites: "What we have her is a failure to comunicate" and my favorite "Respect my authoritare"

That was a little dramatic Steve. The movie is not child porn and never was. Nothing in the movie will be obscene. They didn't sell the movie to finance massive re-edits. Where do you get this stuff from?? A movie is not going to cause an end to this country. "Harlot's Web" is still a top ten movie earning over $50 Mil in three weeks in US alone and will continue to generate millions more when it's released on dvd. Dakota's 3-10 year old fan base has grown not declined.


Daniel Radcliffe will be just a few months away from his 18th birthday when the play starts. He decided to play the nude part to be true to the original 1973 award winning version of "Equus" directed by John Dexter and starred Alec McCowen as psychiatrist Martin Dysart and Peter Firth as Alan Strang. It was subsequently presented on Broadway at the Plymouth Theatre with Anthony Hopkins and Peter Firth and later Anthony Perkins replaced Hopkins. Shaffer adapted the play for a 1977 film starring Richard Burton, Peter Firth, Eileen Atkins, Colin Blakely, Joan Plowright and Jenny Agutter, directed by Sidney Lumet.

The world didn't end 33 years ago when the play was first released and it will not end in 2007.

Tre Benson

Have not worked in the film business since September, Hound Dog was outed nationally in July I believe.

Blue Line Radio is not owned by the radio station. Never was. We started it 3 years ago as a community service.

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. We are in the process of looking for a couple of producers and a webmaster. We may also drop everything and go fishing.

Steven Mark Pilling

Dear Me (!): What a world-view you have!

Again and again you ignore the central point or try to deflect it. A heavily-edited film will not graphically reflect the abuses that occured in it's making. What hapened on that film set WAS pornographic. It demeaned and traumatized three children who will live with the memory forever and have their adult lives and outlooks skewed by it.

And, through them, the children who will watch this film (now edited down to being merely ugly rather than brutally perverse) will be affected as well. This will be the basis of what's left of Dakota's youthful fan base. It will also define her legacy from now on. A multi-level tragedy.

On September 22, The Motion Picture Group, a company with a long list (15 at present) in ill-starred indie flicks, announced their compact with Full Moon Films in their production of "Hounddog". Read their statement on their website, check out their "services" and resume, and the whole story emerges crystal clear. It also establishes the link to Sundance.

And Me: Did the original productiion of "Equus" include a teenaged boy, nude on stage, riding a horse to get is "gratificatiion"? I highly doubt it. That's depravity and sexual exploitation of a minor in it's lowest and most disgusting form. And, as I said, to also use an immensely popular child actor in it's making is just another attempt to corrupt an emerging, youthful audience through him. Like Dakota in "Hounddog"... only worse!

The world won't end? Not quite yet. But civilization is slowly dying right before your eyes and in the same manner that Rome's did... from inner rot.

Steven Mark Pilling

Dear Tre:

Thanks for clearing that up. The best of luck to you and Marc in your projects. That CourtTV deal sounds interesting and should certainly be right up your alley! Personally, I think it's great to have television that gives a clear picture to citizens of how the legal system truely works, for better or worse. Unless you understand something as pervasively vital as legal authority, you can't deal with it effectively!

But watch your back with NPR!

P.S. Are you a salt or fresh water fisherman? My brother-in-law is a Ragin' Cajun who would rather fish every reservoir in Texas before noon than eat boiled crawdads! If you ever want to check out the Sam Rayburn or Toledo Bend lakes, ask him! He knows them better than his own backyard!

The comments to this entry are closed.