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
31            
Blog powered by Typepad

Photo Albums

« STAND UP | Main | IT'S UP TO YOU »

August 21, 2006

Comments

Tre Benson

Blue water fishing, gulf stream, salt water fishing. Fly fishing, light tackle, catch and release.

Right now big Bluefin Tuna are running just off shore. The Japanese have created a market for these 3-500 pounders because of buying them for as much as $40 a pound.

But I can fish for Tuna, Marlin, Wahoo or fish the sounds for Puppy Drum or Speckled Trout.

If I had a second chance at life and could choose I would be living the life of an Outer Banks commercial fisherman and live off the land (or the sea).

Me

Charlotte's Web is now up to $67,000,000+ in four weeks US box office revenues. Millions more in international revenues. Her fan base hasn't been affected one bit. Yes the original version of the play did have the nude horse scene. Radcliff was not asked to do a nude scene he choose to do the scene just like the original play. It was his decision. No one put a gun to his head and he still has time to change his mind.

"What hapened on that film set WAS pornographic."

Prove it! Show me a direct statement from a crew member that witnessed a pornographic scene being shot during the making of the movie.

How do you know it has been edited down? Have you seen the movie?

Tre Benson

I'm not sure about what can be proven to be pornographic because I nor anyone else of matter, has a copy of the video assist recordings. This is not something that even the Assistant District Attorney Connie Jordan has seen or was even aware existed.

One scene of particular interest, more to me than the "rape" scene, was the scene when Lewellen and Buddy come into the shed to dry off after a swim and end up in a pile of naked flesh on the floor as they kiss and fondle each other. This is the scene which was to be the one the investors saw and caused them to withdraw their money, this is the scene which was hurriedly reshot on the last day because, as a producer told me, there was an availability of a crane.

I asked ADA Connie Jordan, who was given and watched an edited version of the film to determine if there was any crime associated with the production of the film, if she recalled that particular makeout session in the shed and she could not remember seeing it.

It is a possibility that the entire shed scene was cut from the film. It added nothing to the story line other than show how sexually advanced both Dakota and Buddy were prior to the rape. Eliminating the scene now with all the advance uproar makes good sense, however it may show up someday in the "uncut" director's version down the road along with tidbits of other questionable moments on film safely snuck in when the law is a bit more defined and liberally oriented to "works of art." Thank you Nancy Pelosi.

Me

"In addition to music, playing in the woods with her friend, Buddy, brings a few other moments of childhood happiness. Their playing drifts toward innocent sexual games, however, and it becomes evident that Lewellen has a painful history that she keeps buried inside."

Written by Trevor Goth for the promotional page of Hounddog on the Sundance site. If Connie couldn't remember the scene then it couldn't have been that bad. It does appear based on this synopsis that the scene will be in the movie. I guess we will know in 14 days.

Steven Mark Pilling

"Innocent sexual games"?! Between a ten year old boy and a twelve (playing a nine) year old girl? If this doesn't define your mentality, Me, then nothing will. Since Connie Jordan has much experience with child abuse cases, we can be assured that if she had seen it, she would remember it! This may be the worst example you've yet evinced of your blind devotion to Hollywood's sexualization of children.

What's even worse, I DO believe, than what "Lewellen" keeps buried inside is what Dakota Fanning, in real life, will carry around with her forevermore. When you consider the tremendous potential for good that this once-laudable child had and what she might have been (but for the heartless and exploitive adults in charge over her) then one of the great tragedies of this entire sad affair emerges.

Me

I didn't write that, Trevor Goth did. I seriously doubt they removed it, sent a copy to the DA, then put it back into the movie for it's Sundance screening. It was in the script and it is in the synopsis for the movie. Just because you have envisioned it as some kind of child porn doesn't mean that is how it was filmed. Nine and ten year old kids do have innocent sexual games of exploration. It doesn't mean Cody and Dakato fondled each each in front of a film crew. It could easily be implied. I have yet to see a claim from a crew member that they filmed a kiddie porn make out session between these two kids.

Me

http://www.rainn.org/

The Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network is the nation's largest anti-sexual assault organization. RAINN operates the National Sexual Assault Hotline and carries out programs to prevent sexual assault, help victims and ensure that rapists are brought to justice.

Fanning's turn as rape victim sparks alarm
By Scott Martelle, Times Staff Writer

Consider this your early-warning Sundance Film Festival controversy alert: Cute little Dakota Fanning plays a precocious child sex-abuse and rape victim in Full Moon Films' upcoming "Hounddog."

The issue: Fanning, who turns 13 next month, is reportedly depicted in the film nude or scantily clad during compromising scenes, and her face is shown in close-up during a rape scene.

Early reports of the film's contents have stirred up a minor Internet storm over whether Fanning's mother, Joy, and her agent, Cindy Osbrink, are exploiting the girl in hopes of an Oscar nomination. In a statement, writer-director Deborah Kampmeier urged critics to withhold judgment until seeing the film.

Child actors depicted in sexual roles is nothing new in Hollywood. Jena Malone portrayed a child rape victim in "Bastard Out of Carolina" (1996), pre-adolescent Brooke Shields' virginity was auctioned off in Louis Malle's "Pretty Baby" (1978) and Jodie Foster famously played a child prostitute in Martin Scorsese's "Taxi Driver" (1976). All were younger than 15 at the time.

Such roles can vault a young actress from the category of "adorable" into being taking seriously as an artist, and Osbrink was quoted this summer as holding out hopes for an Oscar nomination - despite the subject matter, which the New York Daily News reported had scared off some investors during filming.

Fanning is already an experienced actress with more than 30 roles listed on the www.imdb.com web site, including roles in the slasher film "Hide and Seek" and the remake of "War of the Worlds" (both 2005), and as Fern in "Charlotte's Web" (2006).

One of those outraged is Ted Baehr of the Camarillo-based Christian Film & Television Commission.

Baehr, whose advocacy group also runs the movieguide.org website that ranks films based on Christian themes and family appeal, said he hasn't seen the film but is calling on movie distributors to reject the film and report the filmmakers to legal authorities. The movie has the first of four Sundance screenings Jan. 22

"It's pedophilia," Baehr said in a telephone interview Wednesday. "There should be a sense of outrage about it."

Baehr described the filmmakers as "politically correct moral degenerates" who "tolerate sexual promiscuity, including pedophilia."

Kampmeier responded that it was the "height of hypocrisy for a man who bills himself as a film reviewer to pass judgment on movie he's never seen. Mr. Baehr's statements about 'Hounddog,' while repugnant, are also factually incorrect. It is a sad statement about his own morals that Mr. Baehr wants to censor films at all, much less films that tackle difficult but real life issues that need to be addressed. It is a slippery slope that every American should be afraid of."

Representatives for the film also released a statement from Lynn Parrish, a spokeswoman for the Rape, Abuse and Incest National Network, who has seen the movie: "RAINN applauds the makers of 'Hounddog' for shedding light on the issue of sexual assault against our nation's children, a problem we see every day. It is our hope that the national discussion created by the film will give a voice to young survivors everywhere, encouraging them to come forward despite the hurdles they face."

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

Steve

What I find ridiculous is that people care about this... If they can put out the kind of awful violence and death that you see in movies then why not this... people should be far more worried about saving ourselves from movies which make violence and death entertaining than those which present rape negatively. In my opinion, this movie is doing it right. Sure if they were encouraging rape or making it seem entertaining then it would be bad, but making rape look sick (as it is) is no crime. This entire business is all just an overblown hype like all the paranoia about child pornography and abuse. It may be a problem but if any of you really looked at the truth of it you'd realise that the real problem just people's apparently uncontrollable desire to be scared. Let's face facts here, you need something to direct your fears and anger at and what better target than what everybody else thinks they hate because they're all doing likewise. So stop being an extremist and think about what all this is doing; you're only fanning the flames of hatred, sending humanity much further from anything Jesus wants us to be than any movie ever could.

Steven Mark Pilling

Dear Me:

Lots of things occur to and among children that shouldn't. I would hope that we're agreed on that. To ENACT them, using children on a movie set, and for the purposes of profit, is flat out wrong. To degrade them in front of strangers and then show that degradation on film to faceless, voyeuristic stangers from now on is cruel and despicable. What does it take to make that simple point of basic morality clear to you?

By the way, that Los Angeles Times article includes many of the usual, age-old talking points for "art films" that I and others have dealt with over and over again. "It's been done before." (Not like this, it hasn't- not in feature films- nor is it any justification.) "Wait until you've seen it". (And by doing so, in effect promoting it- the screenplay and statements having already made it plain what happened on that set, regardless of what the editing may have altered.) "She's mature for her age". (Dakota's a 12 year old child; the other two having been 10 and 9.) And, of course, the traditional "It'll raise awareness". (Yes, among pedophiles and other rogue filmmakers.)

For that last remark, the outlook and attitude of RAINN needs to be seriously called into question. From Kampmeier, who's history of bringing graphic perversion to the screen is a matter of record, to call anyone "hypocritical" is sheer audacity on her part. For the Times, one of America's most aggressively liberal and anti-traditionalist papers, it's an all too typical snow job.

Steven Mark Pilling

And Steve; if you think that this is "fearmongering" or "paranoia" (the cut-and-dried reaction of the amoral to criticism of perversity), then I suggest you consider the long, incremental history of Hollywood's sexualization of children and the attendant statistics of crimes against them. By the way, Jesus said, "Suffer the little children to come unto Me." He referred to good parenting and moral guidance, Steve, and out of love. That's not "fanning (no pun intended) the flames of hate". That's adult responsibility and caring. Your sense of morality is as skewed as those of others who defend child sexual exploitation. That's the ugly truth that you badly need to confront.

Me

"Not like this, it hasn't- not in feature films"

There have been numerous award winning movies that have sexual elements involving minors. Don't say it's never been done before because it has.

"Wait until you've seen it"

Because then you will at least have an idea of what you are talking about instead of all this speculation and rumors. You will see the context of the movie and how the scenes were used to show the abuse that was done to the character Lewellen instead of speaking about some script excerpts taken out of context.

"Kampmeier, who's history of bringing graphic perversion to the screen"

Have you even seen the other movie she did. I'm going to guess no so how can you judge something you have never seen. Which brings us to Ted the wanna be film reviewer who gives reviews about movies without watching them and PAID to give good reviews to movies that flop at the box office. Yeah that's "hypocritical" to write reviews for movies you never watched and paid to give good reviews to movies the public decided really sucked. He was paid to give a good review for the movie "Left Behind" even tho it lost $13,000,000 and the people that did watch it said it was terrible. He is a hypocrite.

Steven Mark Pilling

Dear Me:

You're sounding like that Richard Walter guy on "Hannity and Combes" last night! We're back to the old, deceptive cry of "Have you seen it?".

Of course not. No one has seen the final (?) version except a few reviewers last week in a sneak preview. The IMDB man published his, I've read it (as I have those on "Virgin", by the way) and I was unsurprised by what I learned. It's an extremely ugly film. Given the basic format, it could hardly be otherwise.

Naturally, you once again ignore or attempt to deflect my basic points.

What happened on that set during the filming and the terrible sexual use made of three children in the process is the reality, not the final film that was edited out of and around those events. The history of long-term trauma to child actors in lesser situations than that plus the inevitable stalkers and attendant crime rate against children that such movies have historically inspired is a grim reality that you dare not face.

And no, it hasn't been done before; not outside of overt pornography. Never in feature films has a child been filmed directly with adult actors in graphic portrayals of sexual conduct. That other films have walked the line on this before, strongly hinting but not enacting, IS NO JUSTIFICATION.

It only goes to prove a basic point of mine; that depravity unchecked only leads to more and greater depravity. "Hounddog" was the next logical step in the ongoing corruption and degradation of children in the popular culture. This is another fact that elitists dare not directly address.

All you can do is twist and ignore facts in the increasingly desperate attempts of a Hollywood-oriented elitist to defend the morally indefensible.

By the way, Ted Bahr was a guest on the "Hannity and Combes" program last night as well. I contrasted his calm and reasoned approach with the blatantly shrill ravings of his opponent. "Comrade" Walter put Hollywood's ugly face right before the viewing public as he ranted out the same false points that you have made here and attempted to shout down any rebuttal in his outrageous performance.

In doing so, he made our point better than any of us could. Hollywood is terminally decadent and corrupt. It routinely undermines and ridicules the traditional values of the American family and culture. Now, after years of subtly increasing increments of child sexploitation, it stands poised to bring child pornography to the general public. It stands now as a deadly threat to American children and must be vigorously opposed by exposing it and it's agenda for what it is.

More and more of us, in organizations or in individual efforts (like myself) are rallying against that hellish challenge. For the sake of our children and their future, we intend to prevail. Maybe not tomorrow, maybe not next year, but with the help of God, eventually. "Hounddog" is our wake-up call. A vile and twisted enemy exists within our midst and you, "Me", are their advocate.

For the sake of your own soul, if nothing else, it's time for you to reconsider.

Advocate of truth

Okay, how can you people say you are advocates against child abuse and then try to say that "hound dog" is a bad movie? First, have any of you actually read what this movie is about? Have any of you actually seen any scenes or shots of this movie. I am guessing that the answer to that question is a big "no". If you want to protect children against abuse then take away thier cell phones and access to adult material through the internet. Educate your children on "life" and the truth. This movie is not for children and not geared towards pedophiles. It is a story (true story) of a child who was abused (much like the Lifetime movies but not as cheesy). Watch this movie and learn how to keep your children out of harms way. Grow up, become adults, and stop whinning about an award winning film that portrays THE TRUTH about the sick things people do!

Me

"child been filmed directly with adult actors in graphic portrayals of sexual conduct"

What child was filmed directly with an adult in a graphic portrayal of sexual conduct? What scene?

Me

What happened to your claims that people would not take their kids to see Charlotte's Web due to outrage over Hounddog?

$73,731,304 US Box Office
$19,381,500 Non US Box Office
$93,112,804 Total Worldwide

In Release: 32 days / 4.6 weeks

Release is also scheduled in 16 more markets in the next month.

Wrong again.

Steven Mark Pilling

Dear Advocate:

Your entire text was nothing more than a pathetic, Hollywood-style rendition of the old "it'll raise awareness" ploy. ONCE AGAIN: Depravity does not cure depravity. Unchecked, it only leads to more and greater depravity. "Hounddog" is the result of years of incremental film abuses against children, slowly increasing in scope, until now we come to this.

If you want to know what the movie is all about, then read the screenplay on this site. Also try the new IMDB review of the recent sneak preview of the next-to-final edit of the film. Even now, after six months, it's STILL ugly. And this does not, of course, address the on-set abuses that are the cornerstone of our case.

And keep watching "Hannity and Combes" for the very latest.

Dear "Me": I see you've run out of arguments and are reduced to sniping from the fringes. By the way, for whatever releveance it has, "Harlot's Web" cost $80 million dollars in basic production costs alone. After a month worldwide, they've barely broken even on just that. This is a huge disappointment for Paramount/DreamWorks... and you know it. I'm sorry for it, though. It will mean that Dakota will now be even futher estranged from her home studio.

defan

Gotta love "Hannity and Combes" for playing real videos of 13 year old girls beating the crap out of each other.

http://www.foxnews.com/video2/player06.html?011707/011707_leventhal_girls&FNL&Beating%20on%20Tape&%26%2339%3BMean%20girls%26%2339%3B%20charged%20in%20beating&US&-1&News&180&&&undefined

Yet they somehow can't see the value in a short scene with no real nudity or violence where you can see Dakota Fanning's face lit by lightning for 15 seconds.

Me

"Harlot's Web" cost $80 million dollars in basic production costs alone. After a month worldwide, they've barely broken even on just that.

It will also be released in 16 more markets in the coming months and is still playing in the US and will be released on DVD later in the year. For a movie with a 6-11 year old market it's doing extremely well. After this movie has had it's full run the total box office take will be well over $200 MILLION dollars. Nice, a $115 Million profit and you still think the studio is not happy? Get real.

"And keep watching "Hannity and Combes" for the very latest".

Yeah, keep pumping up their ratings. They know very well a film maker is not going to allow them to show the movie and scenes from the movie until after it's released. They are just milking this thing.

Child Advocate

For those of you who are uninformed, I happen to have a copy of the script in front of me. Not only is there a rape scene, but the 16 year old boy who rapes her makes her strip and dance in front of him. Adding to that, there is a scene where she watches her father masterbate, a scene where her naked father gets into bed with her. A line of dialogue telling her to "sit on Daddy's lap because it feels so good", a scene with a nine year old boy where they strip and fondle each other, and a scene with a little girl on a swing where the stage direction states that the camera will see her panties under her little dress as she swings. Need I go on? This film is going to be number one for pedophiles. No wonder they had to go to North Carolina to shoot it. No child labor laws in that state and on their website, it even boasts about no laws for children so that more films will be made there. Something needs to be done to stop this.

Me

"When we first met, I said to Dakota this is a difficult and dark world that she would have to enter into, but that I would be there with her every step of the way," said Kampmeier, 42. "It was not about manipulating her; she is a deeply talented and mature actor. To say she was violated to achieve her performance denies her talent. She moved very carefully and intelligently through the work. It was a heavy scene, but after we shot it, she was laughing and dancing because she knew what she had done was an incredible performance."

Though several groups, including the Christian Film & Television Commission, have objected to putting a child actor in that position, Kampmeier stressed that the rape was achieved in the edit, not on the set. "You have a child yelling 'Stop it!" and only when you put that next to an image of a boy unzipping his pants do you see that it's rape." Contrary to reports, there is no graphic nudity, but there are several scenes, carefully shot, where child actors with bare shoulders and legs are presumed to be naked.

Child advocate

If it was all so fun and wonderful, why did crew members walk off the set disgusted and one of them send a script to an advocate so that it could be looked into? Directors will say anything, this is not about Dakota, this is about a filmaker looking for an Oscar. Do you think they care who they damage in order to get their product? The abuse of children in the film industry has been going on since day 1 and the bottom line is, in order to get a convincing performance, you have to believe what is happening in a scene. I don't care how mature Dakota is, a 12 year old should not be subjected to this kind of scene.

Me

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

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

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

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

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

Steven Mark Pilling

Dear Tre: Thanks for the email. I appreciate the kind words. I'm reminded of Dick Armey's farewell speech (I was there!) when he related that he has a bumper sticker which reads "Fish Tremble At The Sound Of My Name"! Good marlin hunting!!

Dear Child Advocate:

Thanks for putting things into perspective so well. Our two adversaries here, as elsewhere, are increasingly reduced to the same old discredited arguments which they can bolster now only with the recent ambiguous mutterings of Deborah Kampmeier, who has not only discredited herself in the process, but also has the most to lose from the truth. Some will never see this or, even if they can, ever be able to admit it because they are psychologically unable to concede a point or a fault in logic. "The Culture Wars" in a nutshell!

We won't convince them, but our more reasoned arguments will make our case to those who search cyberspace for the truth. With every post we make, utilizing reason, facts and common morality, we enhance our case. I think we're agreed that the moral and physical safety of America's children and their attendant innocence and happiness is THE prime concern of any right-thinking adult.

Thanks for adding your testimony. Sorry I've been away for a while. My job workload has been a scandal in itself! Best wishes.

Steven Mark Pilling

Dear Deffie:

How have you been? Good to hear from you again... at least on a personal level!

But you can do better than that! There's no moral equivalence between "Hounddog" and that video. The faces of the participants were blanked out because they were underage. What was filmed there was real and uncut; undisguised as "art". That's what made it so shocking and noteworthy.

If it wasn't for Hollywood's influence, do you think that kids would be doing things like this. Young girls, for God's sake! Certainly, like "Hounddog", this video is revolting. What it DOES do is illustrate the behavior that films and the popular culture promote... films like "Hounddog" itself.

It's sad that you keep looking to "Charlotte's Web" instead of "Hounddog" as some kind of justification for poor Dakota. Especially so, since it's liable to be the last decent movie she ever makes. However, when all the costs are put together and matched against expectations, "Web" has been a real disappointment for Paramount and Dreamworks. Sorry, but there it is.

Steven Mark Pilling

Dear "Me":

After Dr. Ted Bahr came three more daily segments with noteworthy comments from Paul Petersen, Morgan Brittany and Janine Turner respectively. Check out "Hannity and Combes" at "foxnews.com" for transcripts.

By the way, you are constantly reduced to quoting Deborah Kampmeier in order to justify your position. She's not a good source, "Me"! Look at her personal and cinematic background. Look at her overt obsession with child sex in general and the making of this film in particular. Look at her screenplay where her own words make a lie of what she's said recently.

This is a bad person, "Me", and a despicable one. Yet you resort to any leap of intellectual dishonesty to defend her. If she had confined her repugnant activities to Full Moon Films' usual DVD fare, I wouldn't have bothered with her. When she went on to corrupt and defame America's most beloved child for fun and profit and endangered all our children in the process, she made me and others into active opponents... as you should be.

Unless, of course, you actually believe that LaLaLand psychobabble about "a delicate line between art and reality". As I've told Deffie so many times; reality (like truth) is an absolute, not an abstract.

Child Advocate

So the film is not about the rape? Ok, it starts off with Lewellen (Dakota) making a deal with Buddy (the 9 year old boy) to show her his penis and she will kiss him. The story continues and revolves around the fact that Lewellen idolizes Elvis and dances suggestively in front of boys. The 16 year old who rapes her, sees her at her house and then the whole story focuses on her trying to get tickets to an Elvis concert. The 16 year old has them and makes a deal with Buddy to trap Lewellen into coming down to a cabin to pick them up. That is where the rape takes place. After the rape, (which takes place in the middle of the film), she vomits and drags herself around devastated by what has happened to her. I could go on and on, but don't let them tell you that the rape is only a small part of this film. What about the father getting into bed with her naked? Or any of the other questionable scenes? Besides, if the rape was so insignificant, why put it in there? What would be the point if it wasn't integral to the story? Another thing, what if a parent decided to film his 12 year old daughter with the 16 year old neighbor boy and simulate a rape scene (naked or not), to put up on YOUTUBE or sell in some way? How fast do you think that parent would be behind bars? Hollywood gets a pass all in the name of art and it is disgusting.

Me

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

This was PUBLISHED in the Wilmington Star News newspaper quoted from Kelly Tenney. Are you saying he is lying. PROVE IT! Who are the crew members that walked off the set?

"Though several groups, including the Christian Film & Television Commission, have objected to putting a child actor in that position, Kampmeier stressed that the rape was achieved in the edit, not on the set. "You have a child yelling 'Stop it!" and only when you put that next to an image of a boy unzipping his pants do you see that it's rape." Contrary to reports, there is no graphic nudity, but there are several scenes, carefully shot, where child actors with bare shoulders and legs are presumed to be naked"

“Exactly how I was going to film the rape scene was articulated quite specifically in the script, and her mother, her agent, and her teacher/child welfare worker were all present for the filming of the scene, which was carried out exactly as we discussed it. There was so much I had to hide [during filming]. I had to hide the fact that there is not a boy on top of this girl having sex. One of the choices I made as a director is, I shot her face. I didn’t shoot flesh against flesh, his leg touching her leg; I shot her face because I wanted to capture a soul going through this experience, not a body."

So just when is she filmed with a boy on top of her groping, pawing, and humping her take after take??

Tre Benson

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

This was PUBLISHED in the Wilmington Star News newspaper quoted from Kelly Tenney. Are you saying he is lying. PROVE IT! Who are the crew members that walked off the set?"

I won't call Kelly a liar. And I will take the Star News reporter's account of his comment as accurate. But I know what I know to be fact, as fact.

Kelly is not the AD, who normally would excuse someone from set. Kelly was the UPM and quite honestly if he was respected enough the people that walked should have gone to him as a courtesy but they didn't I guess if he heard from only one. The Key may have excused them and pulled someone else or covered the set himself. One of the people I talked with who left answers to no one acutally and could care less what Kelly thought.

And as for names? I guess you will find out when they want you to. Other than that my lips are sealed.

Me

"simulate a rape scene (naked or not), to put up on YOUTUBE or sell in some way? How fast do you think that parent would be behind bars?"


http://youtube.com/watch?v=ql1FdltCd-E

Are these kids behind bars? This is way more graphic than anything you will see in the movie hounddog. I can find a lot more just like this and there have been several movies as well. Rent the movie "States Evidence". An eight year old girl is abducted, taken into a bathroom, raped, and murdered. Later a boy goes into his school and shoots dozens of kids and a couple of teachers before committing suicide. Why didn't anyone protest this movie or others like it?

If they filmed a scene showing only facial expressions in a dark room only being illuminated for a few seconds I do not think anyone would be behind bars.

Answer this question about Ted Bahr. Has he seen the movie? How can someone who claims to be film reviewer give a review for a film he has not seen. Do you think it's a conflict of interest or morally wrong for a film reviewer to take money to give movies a good review? Doesn't that make him a hypocrite?

I think Alan Colmes said it best:

"How is this pedophilia? This is a film..."

"You didn't really know what's in that scene, because you haven't seen it"

"Here is my concern. Who steps in and says you can't do this? Do you want the government to say... "


Me

"Check out "Hannity and Combes" at "foxnews.com" for transcripts."

Check out the transcripts from the Jan 22 show for an interview from Jeanine Pirro who has actually seen the movie and says it is a good movie and there is no graphic rape scene. It is depicted EXACTLY as it was described in the script. Seen from above the shoulders in a dark shed with flashes of lightening only showing the boy's arm. No violence, no groping, no humping, no nudity, no sex.

Me

Sundance Pictures:

http://www.wireimage.com/GalleryListing.asp?navtyp=gls====255707

Tre Benson

Yeah I saw Dennis' picture. You know Dennis gave me my start in the film business. He was in Wilmington shooting Super Mario and he and I got together because he knew my dad. He introduced me to the Lombardi's so I did a little work on Super Mario and then a bit with the Coen's doing Hudsucker all that same summer.

I talked to a friend late last night about the premiere. Seems there still is a little buzz going but the movie is much tamer than the script called for. it got from him a 6 on a scale to 10.

I have to say that I have high hopes that something good comes out of all this.

But I swear, looking at this photo, http://previews3.wireimage.com/images/preview/12346686afilmpro123200791643AM.jpg , it is hard to imagine wanting to risk the careers and spirits of these kid actors by placing them in adult scenerios.

I'm sure we haven't heard the end of this.

And if those wireimage.com photos are any indication as to the emotional mood the chin-up celebratory event put forth, tell me, where is the director?

Steven Mark Pilling

Dear "Me":

May I point out that Tenney has about as much to lose as Kampmeier in this? He was part and parcel of this film's making. The way the scenes were actually shot (in the technical sense) are, of course, not reflected on the screenplay. That's not what they're for... although the filmmakers would have you believe otherwise. Testimony from the set supplies the filmation details. You can accept or reject it as you will.

What Alan Combes said is stark idiocy right on the face of it, as well you know. Your continuing, desperate attacks on Dr. Bahr's character are reprehensible and the resort of one who knows his case is lost. And- ONCE AGAIN- the main issue here is what occured on that set. To three children. In the process of filming.

The version that Jeanine Pirro saw means even less than the one viewed by Connie Jordan!... and by two subsequent re-edits!

Steven Mark Pilling

Dear Tre:

Paul Petersen was excellent in his presentation of the case on "Hannity & Combes"; something "Me" would obviously rather not comment on. Morgan Brittany; ditto. He also appeared on "Catherine Crier Live" and will today again on "Hollywood Heat"... both on Court TV. Unfortunately, by job schedule intervenes! Hopefully, there'll be a rerun this weekend.

Paul was also kind enough to send me the FULL screenplay. God, what a gut-wrencher! There were other scenes in that film that haven't even been mentioned. The one of a mentally unsound "Daddy" wandering around naked and, eventually into a pool hall (with Christoph Sanders, the molester, standing there), plaintively calling for "loving" daughter, is about as nauseating a scenario as a diseased mind could formulate. Then, while they laugh and insult him, Dakota herself shows up to lead him off; he still being stark naked.

At least she doesn't actually murder those two other kids after making them strip and fondle each other. The snake is non-poisonous. However, she does allow her addled father to handle a rattler and walks away while he dies. Second degree murder or manslaughter, then!

Other sick things, too... but you know it all too well!

By the way, Bill Donohue of the Catholic League was on "ShowBiz Tonight" yesterday. His presentation was so good that Deborah Kampmeier herself emailed the show to defend herself. Her "defense" was a virtual word-for-word repeat of her "Premiere" magazine folklore plus a diversionary attack on priest pedophilia. Donohue had her for lunch! And this in spite of a blandly hostile interviewer.

One last note of interest. Dakota was supposed to be interviewed on "Good Morning America" today. That would have been a risky move, as even though that show is a relatively safe venue, it's still not one that goes by a strict script. I sense a little desperation from her handlers to allow this. In any case, though, it didn't matter in the end. She was BUMPED.

Ironically, it was probably their on-phone interview with Abigail Breslin (who didn't have to make a tramp out of herself to get the Oscar's Best Supporting Actress nomination) that probably did it. There's a lesson here for them... although it's likely too late now for poor Dakota to profit by it. I wonder if she'll mention it in her upcoming "ShowBiz Tonight" interview?

We'll see.

Me

http://www.wireimage.com/GalleryListing.asp?navtyp=GLS====255707&str=&styp=&sfld=&nbc1=1&sortval=3a&PageNum=2

The director was there and also many pictures of her were released.

"Testimony from the set supplies the filmation details."

What testimony? How you read read it? Is it published anywhere? Got a link?

"Your continuing, desperate attacks on Dr. Bahr's character are reprehensible and the resort of one who knows his case is lost."

Who lost? The film was screened with some praise and a distribution is in the works. You still haven't answered my question. Do you think it's morally and ethically right for a film reviewer to take money to give a movie a good review? Would he have given Hounddog a good review if they paid him money?

I didn't see Paul Petersen but I'm sure he gave the normal "Talking Points" without providing one shred of evidence or eye witness accounts.

David Morse is not seen nude in this movie. In fact no one is nude in the movie.

Tre Benson

OK thanks for the pics of the director, they weren't on there earlier. I did notice Lori Levine http://previews1.wireimage.com/images/preview/12344988afilmpro123200781741PM.jpg

Levine is a celebrity wrangler. Her business is making sure celebs show up to events. Her name was also found on the Scientologist's site as a member.

I am curious about how big of a PR tab they got to spin all this mess. I would imagine it isn't unusual to have PR people working your premeiere but the Producers of Hounddog owe a ton of money to a bunch of people.

Seriously though there is a lot more thought put into this movie than word would have you believe. It has obviously been a lot of work that's for sure.

Me

Some who bashed the film's concept "were attacking my family and me, and that's where it got too far," says Fanning, 12, jabbing her finger into a table at a restaurant. "Pretty much everybody who talked about it attacked my mother, which I did not appreciate. That was extremely uncalled for and hurtful."

The scene in question involves a boy in his late teens who lures Fanning's character to an abandoned shack with promises of Elvis Presley tickets. The scene lasts less than a minute, and no simulation of a sex act is depicted on camera. The viewer sees flashes of Dakota's face, hand and foot as she falls, but the camera looks away as she begins to cry. No nudity is shown, though all involved in the movie agree it is a disturbing sequence.

Fanning, however, said the scene was not disturbing to shoot. She filmed the close-ups of her face alone, with the direction: Hold your breath, wait, now gasp.

Some religious groups protested that having such a young actress in a rape scene was criminal, but that complaint has not gained traction with any law enforcement agency.

"I didn't have to articulate to Cody and Isabelle the psychological elements that were going on in this film," she said. "I used images to tell the story. I didn't manipulate these children or explain to these children what was going on."

Fanning said she and Kampmeier talked for months before the film was shot and spent a day painting pottery together and discussing the story.

"It's not really happening," Fanning said of a rape. "It's a movie, and it's called acting. I'm not going through anything. Cody and Isabelle aren't going through anything, their characters are.

"And for me, when it's done it's done," she said. "I don't even think about it anymore."

Steven Mark Pilling

Dear "Me":

You endlessly repeat excerpts of how the final version of "Hounddog" was presented and what psychologically wounded twelve year old child has to say about it while largely mouthing the words of her keepers.

First off: The prime question is what happened on that set in the filming process. Try and get that straight. Even so, the movie was ugly and disturbing in it's final cut. "ShowBiz Tonight's" Brooke Anderson (hardly a right-wing culture warrior!) gave it a review that was almost scathing. So have others. Nor, according to reports, was the film especially well received, even with an full crowd of elitists in attendance. Like I've said, it's hard to sanitize a film that is all about deviancy and child sex from beginning to end!

As to Deborah Kampmeier's statements which you quote; they fly in the face of reality and common sense like kamikazes! Certainly, those children knew what was going on. How could they conceivably not have? When you take children out in a field, surround them with a filming crew, have them strip naked and fondle each other (while another child holds a prop shotgun at them and drapes them with a snake!)... well, they're going to arrive at a few conclusions. They're also going to live with that degradation for the rest of their lives.

"I used images to tell the story", says Kampmeier. What an incredible load of Hollywood hogwash! And Dakota spending a day with her, discussing the film while they painted pottery, etc, etc.?! For God's sake, "Me"; doesn't the rampant unreality of all this phase you at all?

About as disturbing as all this is the blatant propaganda use now being made of Dakota herself. She still dutifully repeats her talking points. But now a new element has been added. They're attempting to add false pathos to the battle with this "attacking her mother" theme. This shows just how far they're willing to go to divert attention from the main issues. Even more sadly, it likewise reveals how heavily they've worked on that child to corrupt her thinking process with selected points and images.

God help that poor kid. That of her soul that hasn't been torn from her by degenerate filmation is now being lost through hard manipulation before our very eyes.

defan

Steve, you endlessly ignore the fact that NOTHING WRONG HAPPENED ON THE SET!

The director said Dakota filmed her part of the rape scene alone--no other actor was on the set. In other words she was NOT "groped, licked, pawed and humped by an actor take, after take, after take"

From USA Today:
The scene lasts less than a minute, and no simulation of a sex act is depicted on camera. The viewer sees flashes of Dakota's face, hand and foot as she falls, but the camera looks away as she begins to cry. No nudity is shown, though all involved in the movie agree it is a disturbing sequence.

Fanning, however, said the scene was not disturbing to shoot. She filmed the close-ups of her face alone, with the direction: Hold your breath, wait, now gasp.
-------

How's it feel to be 100% wrong, geneos? All that time spent covering every internet blog and forum, propogating lies, rumors, innuendoes, and half truths, all a mistake on your part.

Dakota has a special message for YOU, Steve:

Some who bashed the film's concept "were attacking my family and me, and that's where it got too far," says Fanning, 12, jabbing her finger into a table at a restaurant. "Pretty much everybody who talked about it attacked my mother, which I did not appreciate. That was extremely uncalled for and hurtful."
http://www.usatoday.com/life/movies/news/2007-01-23-fanning-hounddog_x.htm

Me


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BddbVHc5ISY

http://i14.tinypic.com/2vjsl6r.jpg


PARK CITY -- "Hounddog" is the bete noire at this year's Sundance Film Festival. But as is often the case, most of the protests were coming from people who haven't seen it. There is nothing exploitive or sensationalized about the story of a 12-year-old girl's rape in the rural South in the late 1950s. Starring Dakota Fanning in an absolutely riveting performance, the film, directed by Deborah Kampmeier, is a cautionary tale of what happens to all too many young girls. It's a courageous film, and subject matter and controversy will undoubtedly create some curiosity at the boxoffice.

Prefestival buzz about the danger of exposing poor 12-year-old Fanning to this kind of material proves unwarranted and disingenuous in a society that is constantly sexualizing young girls. The character's sexual awakening just happens to be in 1958, triggered in part by the eroticism of Elvis Presley's music. As Lewellen, a jewel among the rotting cars and run-down shacks in rural Alabama, Fanning projects a strange mix of innocence and awareness. The triumph of her performance is her ability to turn it on and off in the same scene, sometimes even in the same shot.

Lewellen shuttles back and forth between living with her abusive, alcoholic father (David Morse) and her strict, God-fearing grandmother (Piper Laurie, reprising her role from "Carrie"). For a young girl just hitting puberty, the mix of repressiveness and permissiveness (she sips from her father's beer bottle) has to be confusing. Her mother long out of the picture, she desperately wants a female role model, a role that her father's sometime girlfriend (Robin Wright Penn) is in no shape to provide. As a child, she was probably raped, too.

Lewellen is pretty much left to figure things out for herself. Her only friend is Buddy (Cody Hanford), a sweet neighborhood boy for whom she has a normal sexual curiosity. The sole adult looking out for her is Charles (Afemo Omilami), a horse trainer for the rich people. As an embodiment of the female spirit and the injustice women endure, Lewellen has an instinctive bond with Charles, the oppressed black man.

The only thing that keeps Lewellen sane is singing, which is ironically what gets her in trouble. When she sings and gyrates to "Hounddog," she is both aware and not aware of what she's doing. Unfortunately, the kid who delivers the milk (Christoph Sanders) catches her act and is turned on. When he lures her to the woods with the promise of a ticket to see Elvis and does the deed, we see little of the gory details; the scene is shot matter-of-factly without excess.

Occasionally, Kampmeier lays on the southern Gothic too heavily. Snakes are crawling everywhere in the movie, and after Lewellen is raped, she is visited in bed by a bunch of reptiles. The tone of the story veers from the naturalistic to the mythical, but it is sometimes inconsistent, and a couple of plot points are overplayed. Still, in spite of a few missteps, the cumulative impact of the film is undeniable.

Shot beautifully by Ed Lachman, Jim Denault and Stephen Thompson, the darkness and light in the forest conjures up the lair of a fairy tale princess, which is the kind of archetypal power Kampmeier is aiming for. After the incident, which threatens to destroy her life, Lewellen is rescued not by a prince but by Charles, who forces her to exorcise her demons by singing the blues. Her now hesitant and soulful rendition of "Hounddog" is both heartbreaking and life-affirming.

A bluesy score by Me'shell Ndegeocello and period songs, including Big Momma Thorton's original version of "Hounddog," evoke the mournful undertone of life in the South. It is from this kind of suffering that artists are born. Lewellen might not be well or cured, but she is on the mend, which is a start.

------------------------------------------

Doesn't sound like pedophilia to me. Yeah it's a chick flick but who didn't that? I know you talked to people but this director and the people involved just don't seem like the types that would sexually exploit kids. Rent the movie Virgin and check out the special features. Elisabeth Moss talks very highly of the director. I've spoken to the director and she seemed like a nice person. I know some crew members didn't get paid and a lot didn't like working on this movie but the finished product isn't bad at all. Not a great film, cheesy at times, but what do you expect from an indie film by a woman director with only two movies under her belt. All this hype for nothing. Dakota suffered from this movie but it wasn't during the filming, it was afterwards with all the personal attacks and rumors. If you guys would have just left this alone it would have faded away with little or no attention playing at a few theaters and then to dvd and quickly forgotten. I have to say it was an interesting debate. I'm still not convince there was any harm but you still haven't provided clear evidence. It's not about winning or losing, it's the fight that matters, right? Everyone put up a good fight!!

While you still have a lot of people's attention go after those sick child modeling and child porn sites. Hopefully something good will come from the Hounddog debate. I still say it did bring awareness to child abuse and rape just like they said it would. More people are talking about it than ever before.

This was my contribution that helped to keep the controversy going:

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/743411173?ltl=1169790129

I've had about enough of Hounddog and will wait to see what all the hype was about when it gets to dvd.

"Respect my authoritare!"

I'm outta here....

Steven Mark Pilling

On or about the 28th of January, in response to that sorrowful and self-defamatory press conference at the Sundance Film Festival, I sent the following email to the website of Robin Wright Penn.

Madame:

At a recent interview, you made the following comment about Dakota Fanning: "She's moving on from America's sweetheart into something else." What "else", Miss Wright? And what exactly do you see her moving away from... and to?

Do you have any comprehension of the phenomenal love that child once enjoyed- worldwide- among her peers? We're talking about an entire generation of children. We're also talking about their parents, who likewise loved her because she represented a rare good example from Hollywood. Added to that was what was once her greatest talent; the ability to win the love of others by her mere presence. It was believed by some (myself included) that Dakota had a great future and legacy; one that might well transcend her acting career.

It took you, among others, to destroy all that. I don't know what inducements you offered or pressures you brought to bear upon Dakota and her family. I can't say what misguiding direction you used on those three children to make them compliant in their own defamation. Likely, we'll never know exactly.

But what DID happen on that set in the process of filming is known well enough. It's known from the original screenplay and the statements of those technicians who provided it. As to it's validity; one need only look to the past record and statements of Deborah Kampmeier, yourself and your "Full Moon" staff and associates to ascertain your collective character.

I've heard your words over the past six months. There was the initial reaction in late July (after your disasterous "outing" by Grove and Benson). Then came the long silence until, by necessity, you emerged from the shadows with your new, sanitized (and legalized!) version of the obscenity that you helped create. The words you've used to "justify" yourself are familiar ones. They've been used by many others over the last third of a century to excuse every form of depravity foisted on the American public by filmmakers. I won't bore you with a list. You obviously know them all by heart.

But "moving on" is the one that you've only just re-introduced. In the real world, it's true meaning is well established. It means "self-defacement". It means participation in theatrical vileness so as to establish the "credentials" deemed necessary by the Hollywood elite for full acceptance. It has seldom been applied to a child before... and never in such an horrific manner.

Unlike those of the cinematic mindset, normal people tend to understand what you either refuse to admit of are incapable of admitting. It is this: The greater reality lies not in what happened on the screen, but what happened on the set. And what happened on that set was the sexual exploitation of three children... and to such an extent as was never before attempted in the "legitimate" American cinema.

Others have been used before in this odious manner; yes. The examples of "Lolita", "Pretty Baby", "The Exorcist" and, of course, "Taxi Driver" are held up constantly by you and your supporters... and as a justification! They are nothing of the sort. These films are merely more cause for shame. They were also incremental in the slow, often subtle movement in the popular culture that we call the "sexualization" of children.

This has led us to this inevitable culmination of events: "Hounddog". Now, for the first time in the history of American feature films, children have been used DIRECTLY with adult actors (and even among themselves) on a film set in sexual enactments. What was formerly confined to the dark corners of human existance is now poised to go "mainstream". This is your legacy.

But what of Dakota's legacy, Miss Wright? What can she ever claim now, having been virtually desecrated in a cheap, vile sex movie and humiliated for all time? Other child actors, including those in the movies I just mentioned, were never called upon to do what she did on-set. The emotional troubles, the stalkers and the lingering infamy haunted them all through their childhood and into their maturity. What will Dakota, Cody and Isabelle face now?

And, most importantly, what will other children now face as a result? What about the other child actors out there? There are almost eight thousand kids under the age of eighteen registered with the Screen Actor's Guild. What new career options (or, God help us, necessities) might they now face? If "Hounddog" succeeds, will they find themselves confronted with a situation of "Go low... or out you go."?

Then we come to the worst part of this grim scenario. Dakota WAS "America's sweetheart", as you said. As her early-on supporter, I used to refer to her as "America's daughter"! But what is she now? She's "moved on".

But her peer-aged supporters (now largely former ones) are growing up, too. They're also "moving on" and mostly in a far different and better way. They don't share the Hollywood elitist non-values that you have twisted Dakota's mind with. All they know is that a little girl that they loved like a sister, a love born of perception of character, has arrogantly thrown that love back in their collective face as though it were garbage. They've seen her rise from a small child out of Georgia to one who, for a brief, shining moment, stood poised to put her face and name on their entire generation... and for all the right reasons, as she seemed to embody the best of their virtues. And then all that was, with breathtaking suddenness, brutally overturned.

But there's more. Not only has Dakota, through your tutelage, betrayed the love and trust that millions, young and old alike, so freely gave her. Not only has she defamed her own generation in semi-prnographic excess. She has, in the process, endangered them all; morally and physically.

The "moral" aspect is readily apparent. Children who have been Dakota's long-time supporters WILL see this movie. As Dakota once said herself, "Kids find a way". They'll think of her previous roles and conclude that, if she's in it, how bad can it be? Then they'll see it... and what will they see and think? Even if in ignorance of the degenerate methods used in it's filming, the "finished product" is still bad enough. The reviews and "exit poll" opinions from Sundance make that all too plain. What will impressionable children learn from it? What warped attitudes of life, adult conduct and values in general will they carry with them?

And then there's the physical danger. Miss Wright; do you think that there's a deviant in America who hasn't, at some time, dreamed of having Dakota in his power? Well, now they can... by visual proxy. They will see themselves as David Morse and Christoph Sanders. They will enjoy every moment again and again.

For some, however, it will not be enough. Then, for some unfortunate child, the ultimate (and all too often terminal) nightmare will be unleashed. This will happen. This is what child pornography engenders. It does not "raise awareness". It does not give "a voice" to molestation victims, as Miss Kampmeier declared with bland mendaciousness. It does not condemn perversity. It enables it.

Even if, God willing, "Hounddog" is never released to theaters, it will be to DVD outlets. After that happens, you will be faced with an ugly spectre that you must live with. Every time you hear of a sexual and/or violent attack upon a child- and from this moment forward- you must consider the possibility that the initial event which sparked it was of your making. That, from now on, is your legacy.

It is also Dakota's. I can't help but think of what she was and, had she remained uncorrupted, what she might have been. All she had to do was keep to the "high road" in her personal and professional life and all manner of fine things, perhaps to include greatness of the most laudable kind, might have followed.

Now all that is gone. It started when the adults surrounding her ceased to think of her as a child to be loved, nurtured and guided... and came to regard her, instead, as a lucrative source of income. As a source to be perpetuated at any cost. To her.

That, in itself, is hardly a new story in Hollywood. It is a dismally repetitive one. Examples of parental and professional abuse, betrayal and exploitation of the child actors in their unloving care are as old as Hollywood. Older, in fact. It's just that now, in poor Dakota's case, the potential consequences have never been so extensive, pervasive and saddening. What happened to her- and will through her- stands poised to become a grim, new "normality" in filmdom. As I've pointed out, it will extend itself in many ways, some terrible indeed, to the generation Dakota once represented.

This will largely be your doing. Once again, it will be your legacy. But it will be Dakota who will take the blame and bear the burdens of it for the rest of her life.

God pity her.

Yours truely;

Steven Mark Pilling

Addendum:

Miss Wright:

Upon reflection, I can't help but think about the dolorous relationship that now exists between you and Dakota Fanning. I'm reminded that it was your husband who played such a large part in her rise to stardom... one of the few decent things he ever did. Yet, it was left to you, his wife, to bring her career (and her young life) down in ruins. If you had to put her in such a despicable film, you might at least have made it a well-crafted one. I suppose, though, in having had to chop it up so much to keep yourself and your partners out of jail, that would have been asking a lot.

Steven Mark Pilling

Dear Readers:

Back on February 7th, during a lull of activity on my job, I started to think over the total picture of the "Hounddog" affair; from the beginning until now. As a matter of self-amusement (and with a recent reminder of Dakota Fanning's thirteenth birthday on the 23rd) I actually started penning a few whimsical lines of verse about things. I've never even tried that before! However, as I continued and the words kept coming to me, it evolved from bittersweet satire into tragedy.

In that way, I guess, it mirrored my entire experience! Let me share this with you as a light offering.

CHILDHOOD'S END

The woman from Conyers had two little daughters, Dakota and Elle were their names.

She got them in movies and- Ohhh- it was groovy, the money that came with their fame.

But her oldest got "older" and Cindy done told her, nice movies be cannot forbear.

That change is a-comin' and soon we'll be bummin', our ten percents no longer there!

But if you're receptive, I've got a suggestive to keep our accounts out of zero.

She loves Jodie Foster, so let us engross her with tales of that film with DeNiro!

We'll guile and bewitch her. A story we'll pitch her, until her small head is a-whirl.

"An adult star you'll be. Adultation you'll see. You're no longer a good little girl!"

"You're mature for your age." (Her credulity gauge!) 'Till she no longer knows right from wrong.

Then to Deb'ra we'll go, for Dakota to show... and-we'll-sell-her-right-off-for-a-song!!

We'll say it's our duty, a cheap "indie" movie, will raise folks' awareness of rape.

Only small profits, true... but just let me tell you, on sleaze virtue the critics will drape!

I have seen it before. I do actresses whore- and the younger the better. You'll see!

So Dakota we'll sell and tell her, "You've not fell. Hollywood's queen you will be!"

"Let not Christians you vex. After all, it's just sex! And a sheer body stocking you'll wear."

"And don't you dare mock it, the D.A.'s in our pocket and the media people won't care."

Her future we'll hone. Movies like Sharon Stone's, their producers on your doorstep camp.

They won't turn away, and so what if some say: You've made of your sweet daughter a tramp?

We'll both laugh to the bank. Let them call her a skank! For the money our conscience will salve.

And then when she's older, we'll get even bolder, her trust fund to our pockets valve!

So they took her down South, near Cape Fear River's mouth, and they traded her dearness for gold.

They collected their plunder, but couldn't help but wonder, why their little girl looked so old.

Sure, the scenes were all crude, but she's not REALLY nude!... and she's danced all like Elvis and sung!

So the sex parts were tough. There's the Oscars! ENOUGH! And besides, 'twas all "tastefully done"!

But the child, in remorse... (Did she see "Daddy" Morse? And that Sanders kid, was it all true?)

Her mind WAS a-whirl. She was STILL just a girl. Was this really what grown-ups could do??

In nightmares she hears Christoph's laugh... And his sneers! And his face! Her blood curdles and chills.

But Mom says, "Don't fool me. It's only a movie. In adulthood, you'll see it as thrills."

But she feels the disgrace... and that film crewman's face!... and the horror she saw in his eyes.

And it won't go away, for the hellishness stays, and the frightful ordeal will not die.

To premieres, TV shows, she mechanically goes, and she says what they tell her to say.

But the fun is all gone and she hopes, before long, those grim memories will go away.

What does a child do, with her happiness through, and the love that she's known all her life-

- from so many is gone. (...and whatever went wrong?) and the loneliness cuts like a knife.

But her handlers aren't done, though from Sundance they've run, with their works and their names held in scorn.

DVDs they'll still sell and the money WILL swell... though they'll sell it from stores filled with porn.

And Mommy and Cindy recover from mis'ry and lay their plans newly and tell-

To each other: So what? Her career's blighted, but... After all, now, WE STILL HAVE ELLE.

Me

Steve you are a nut case. You really need to seek some help because this obsession is dangerous to your mental health. Did you get tired of telling lies and resort to twisted poetry? Do you really think sending letters to these people will do anything other than put you on a watch list of possible stalkers? Seriously take a week off, go find some friends or something, or join some local organization that deals with real abuse. You have clearly made a name for yourself as a nut case that is obsessed with a 12 year old girl. You are starting to freak me out.

Steven Mark Pilling

I'm just a misunderstood artist!

Steven Mark Pilling

One thing, "Me", since you've obviously been missing the point of this situation all along. This is about the safety of children in this country. It is not principally about the misadventures of some poor, deluded child actress. She comes into this because her popularity among those of her generation was used by unscupulous filmmakers to corrupt them all. When they exploited her, they exploited all of them by extension.

Children are endangered, morally and physically, by the trends in the popular culture; Hollywood in particular. "Hounddog" epitomized it all by the unprecedented lengths it went to in making a vile film solely about child sex. Dakota Fanning was right in the middle of it. That's why she gets the special attention.

Beyond that, though, she's just one kid among many. Her safety and future as a decent adult is important. That of the other 7,500 child actors in films, whose lives are most directly impacted by the sexualization process, are important, too. But these exploitation trends thereby extend to the entire younger generation through the all-pervasive influence of modern pop culture.

You mention (correctly) that rape, child molestation, child pornography (and I'll add to that the recent, terrible trends in actual child slavery) are all important. I couldn't agree more. Then there's the disturbing use of child actors in scenes of violent abuse, murder and morbidity: such as is regularly seen on TV shows like "Law & Order:SVU. Note: Elle Fanning, Dakota's eight year old sister, was cast on that show in such an episode.

I maintain, however, that much of this is fuelled by the popular culture which is, in turn, generated principally by the film industry. That's why I'm concentrating there. I'm just one man alone, though. I can't cover the wide and terrifying array of child abuses that exist.

If you believe that my efforts are misdirected or misprioritized; okay. I encourage you, then, to direct YOUR efforts to where you think they could better serve the overall cause. As I have often said, the highest priority of any adult is the protection, nurturement and moral guidance of children. I hope we're agreed on that.

But it does no one any good to accuse another of some sort of sick obsession with a child who is likely ruined for life anyway. I'm sorry for her. Bitterly sorry, in fact, because I recognize the great and wonderful potential for good that, until recently, she represented and was capable of. Her downfall, in the hands of amoral filmmakers, thus represents a blow to her peers. I don't want this to be their downfall right along with her.

Steven Mark Pilling

I thought you were dead, Maurice!

First of all, something DID happen in reality to Dakota. She performed in sex scenes directly with adult actors. A number of us took the time to stress the point of this film's indecency with children on-set and the threat it posed, through them, to children everywhere. If anything, we helped to make it non-lucrative (at least in the short run) and expose it for what it was. If we hadn't, it WOULD have helped the film immensely.

Of course, that "Hounddog" would appeal to a certain "group" of people, no matter what we did, was a given. The message was not aimed at them. It was directed at those who might be fooled by the disinformation or inclined to see the film (or even take their kids!) merely because Dakota was in it. In other words, we were addressing those same good, moral people that you apparently despise, Maurice. And, at the same time, we've helped to make people understand that the film medium has turned hostile to every decent thing this country has ever stood for.

No, the rape didn't happen to Dakota in reality. No one ever said it did. Psychologically, though, there is little real difference between the real act and the graphic enactment. In that sense (and it's a very real one) she and those other two kids WERE abused. The next step for us is to see that this is addressed and justice is done.

Me

"She performed in sex scenes directly with adult actors."

WHAT SCENE did Dakota or any other actor perform scenes acts with adults?

The rape? It shows her leg and arm, mostly her face as she screams, just like they said it would back in Sept. 2006.

SCENE 53? She was not on the set when David Morse was filmed and he was not on the set when she was filmed. If you bothered to read the reviews from people who actually watched the movie you would know they are not even in the same frame. It's called editing.

SCENE 80? No one was nude during the filming of this movie and you or anyone else has not proven otherwise.

Tell me how this is the first movie in HISTORY that has minors and adults filmed in sexual acts? You have no idea what you are talking about.

As far as Dakota's career being ruined why is she in FOUR UPCOMING MOVIES?

The Secret Life of Bees (2007) (announced)
Winged Creatures (2008) (pre-production)
Hurricane Mary (2008) (pre-production)
Coraline (2008) (filming)

I agree with Maurice, you hyped this movie and made people want to see it. You are the one promoting the sexualization of children.

Mr. Reasonable

First of all, to the above poster. LEARN ENGLISH!! I barely could understand your post. I have never read a more disjointed ans ludicrous comment like this.
So, from what I think you are saying, just because scenes can be edited, now Bastard Out of Carolina is porn too, and illegal?? By THAT criteria, ANY film could have hidden cut scenes that were removed. Maybe children shouldn\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'t be in ANY films lest they be taken advantage of. How do we know what scenes were cut out of \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"Little Miss Sunshine?\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"
You know, there were those rumors about Shirley Temple too. (REALLY)
Just because a film is edited, doesn\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'t mean the cuts were provocative.
You say Dakota\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s mom wasn\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'t on the set. I also heard someone say here that there was no social worker. BUT..I have heard otherwise. This was a very low budget film. The \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"crew\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" who said all these things were going on, I heard were just upset that they weren\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'t paid enough.
Let\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s look at logic. Dakota did this film to get out of the typecasting she has been in, playing a little girl. She is now a teen and wants more mature roles. Unlike those of us who think kids are innocent and don\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'t know about sex, and life, I can assure you that today, what a 10 year old knows would shock you. Dakota, for little pay, took this role as a career move. She is a smart girl and because actors DO read scripts BEFORE they do a scene, she was well aware of what that entailed. I don\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'t think Dakota for a moment would have let herself participate in the kinds of \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"act\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" you idiots here \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"think\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" she engaged it. Admit it! Dakota is a very smart, and precocious young lady. As cute as she looks, she is not 5 years old but a teen. Do you think for one minute that she would let herself be bamboozled by her mom and the director to appear in these scenes if they were as bad as everyone says, bordering on \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"illegal\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"???
Do you think Dakota is an idiot? Her arm was not twisted to do any part of this film. She wasn\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'t dragged screaming onto the set, where sweaty male crew members held her down, while an adult felt her up, or rubbed on top of her.
You people are SO sick to even think that.
If Miss Fanning DID did a tenth of the things you try to have us believe, than the poor girl\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s innocence was long gone before this movie was even thought of....

Steven Mark Pilling

Dear "Me":

That's just it. It IS called editing. The screenplay, statements, financial limitations and amateurish filmographic record of Mz Kampmeier alone make it evident that those scenes were filmed in sequence. The molestation, the masturbation, Morse's nude meanderings, interchild sexplay... on and on. Editing- and MUCH of it- is what they did of necessity to keep the film within the bare bounds of legality. It wasn't what they did in the original process! They had neither the money nor the expertice in the first place! Just to "strip down" the raw footage, in the end, required a virtual sell-out to The Motion Picture Group.

Don't even try to say that Dakota wasn't there when Sanders' character molested her's- or that Morse didn't fake an orgasm in her presence- or that he didn't sit at her bedside (both of them semi-nude) and make sexual advances- or that she was in Paris when "somebody" held two children at gunpoint, made them strip and fondle each other and then draped them with a snake!

Was she there when she posed half-nude in a mirror to "inspect" herself or when she played "show and tell" with Cody Hanford? Was it a stand-in who did that sexually-charged dance to a tinny-voiced rendition of an Elvis song? Was it AnnaSophia Robb who lay in "dishabille" in bed while snakes crawled all over her? And was it Abigail Breslin who allowed "Daddy" to be snakebitten and watch as he died in agony...and then coldly walked away?

And even if (incredibly!) those scenes could have been cobbled together from disjointed shootings and if that final film version was actually all there was... wouldn't that be enough even then?

Lukas Haas: "How can you do your job and say your lines if you don't know what's going on?"

That simple truth, direct from a former child actor who knows, better than most, how "gritty" scenes can affect underaged performers, hashes all your arguments. Those three kids, Dakota in particular, HAD to know what they were doing and why. That you CAN'T insulate them from. They know what they did. They (and many others) will see it on DVD, etc., into the distant future. And they will have to live with the infamy... and their own memories.

The rest of your statement is the usual rehash of claptrap. Technically, morally and legally; the use of children in body socks, placed in sexual situations, is the same as actual nudity. Even then, we only have the filmmakers' word for it. And (as you conveniently misquote me!) I said that it was the first time children were used this way in the history of FEATURE films. The point of this (since you missed it) is that what happened in the process of filming had only happened before in overt pornography. This is the barrier that "Hounddog" broke. This is what makes this all so important... and dangerous.

And then, after your endless and fanatical lauding of this film and all it's inherent and attendant evils, to accuse me of promoting it (and isn't that what you wanted??) while OPPOSING it...!! All you have proven, "Me", as you still do, is your own amorality toward children and your stunning level of intellectual dishonesty.

By the way, "The Secret Lives of Bees" and "Coraline" have long been in the works and pre-date "Hounddog". Both are minor animated efforts using Dakota's voice. The other two, just recently announced, are also minor projects. They are also, regrettably for Dakota, more heavy melodrama. "Winged Creatures" is actually called an "ensemble drama" because it alternates between four actors who survive and heinous and random mass-murder. More exploitation and emotional trauma for Dakota! Just what she needed!

"Hurricane Mary" is even more pathetic. Not so much because of content (from what I've yet discovered, anyway) but because of Dakota's co-star. At long last, she and her sister Elle get to work together directly... but under what circumstances? Elle's career is booming. She'll likely never be A-lister, but she's in great demand. Her big sister, once the premiere underaged A-lister of all time, is no longer.

Essentially, it seems that Dakota is now leaning on her sister's box office to salvage her own. How ironic, considering that Elle got started by playing her sister's younger self in flashbacks. I actually predicted it months ago... though I hoped I would be proved wrong. They've come the full circle.

And they play TWIN sisters! Dakota's so underdeveloped for her age that Elle Fanning, four years her junior, as caught up with her to the point that she can play a like-aged child. Dakota turns 13 tomorrow while Elle turns 9 in April... the same age as Lewellen! Maybe it's just genetic. Maybe not.

Steven Mark Pilling

Dear Mr. Reasonable:

We're discussing a film that, as we have every "reason" to believe, made obscene usage of three children. I don't know for sure what scenes may or may not have been cut out of those other films. If others have, in fact, sunk to the level of "Hounddog", then it's just further reason for concern, shame and outrage. There is no justification anywhere inherent in this.

Dakota's mother (and manager) WAS on the set; as was Cindy Osbrink, her agent. Both sat at the back of the set and witnessed Dakota's desecration without protest. This is no mitigation by any means! Just the opposite. It only proves that this child is surrounded by exploitative adults and is in grave psychological (if not physical!) danger. Also; Jan Cerwonka, her private tutor, has no legal authority as a "welfare worker".

Now: That children these days are exposed to sexually explicit material in the popular culture (and trend that has culminated in "Hounddog" is no excuse for any of this. It is not to be casually accepted. Dakota is not a teen (that comes at 14) nor does it make any difference. She's still vastly underage and such situations as she's been exposed to are not to be tolerated. Children by nature are vulnerable and impressionable. That's why good parents and a good environment are so important.

And don't try to peddle that old and much-touted (and supernatural, if true!) "precociousness" of Dakota Fanning. Nor does it matter how "smart" she may be. She's still a child with a child's natural limitations. Of course she was "bamboozled"! She did what her mother and long-time agent led her to do. Little girls want to please their parents.

Maybe the innocence of children means little to you, "Reasonable", but it means everything to decent and dutiful parents. Children have a right to expect a kind, stable home and a happy and loving childhood. Sure, they won't always get it; but that doesn't mean that it's not a goal to be striven for. Let kids face the world and all it's harsh realities when they're properly raised and psychologically developed enough to evaluate it and to cope with it.

And, by the way, learn proper punctuation.

The comments to this entry are closed.