IT'S UP TO YOU

Sometimes it seems the whole world is watching when it is only your neighbors. Certainly the world isn’t watching me, what I say, when I talk about the movie Hound Dog staring the child actress Dakota Fanning. But judging from emails and posts on the internet you would think that the whole world is indeed watching.

Maybe it is but when I check the traffic on our website there is no huge spike in visitors. No more than any other month we have had controversial topics. 250,000 hits a month is about average, we had maybe a 15% jump in the number of hits. Nothing to brag about, nothing to be able to claim that talk of Dakota Fanning created any major stir.

Except that this did cause my email box to be stuffed with atta-boys as well as some vicious complaints.

For those of you new to this I will fill you in. A movie was just filmed in this area staring Dakota Fanning, a 12 year old actress who has been as busy as any actress in Hollywood . Hide and Seek, Man on Fire, I am Sam and War of the Worlds, just to name a few of her accomplishments. Anyway this 12 year-old star portrays a 9 year old girl who finds herself in various sexually explicit scenes, including a rape that was rumored to show her either nude or partially dressed.

We hit on this back in June when I received a copy of the script. Outraged? Yes! Completely. Shocked is more like it. Shocked that there are laws against such things and no one seems to give a damn.

Originally I was hearing all kind of stories from crew members about this and that. But I wasn’t hearing from the authorities.

In July we contacted authorities about what we believed to be a cut and dry case of the sexual exploitation of a minor. Why did we do that? Because it is a state law that mandates any person that has reason to believe a crime against a child has taken place, that person is required by law to report such beliefs. Initially we were told that authorities were investigating the accusations. We have not made any attempt to follow up because that is not our job. Our job as a citizen is to make the report. That is what is required of us by law.

As a father, a worker in the film industry, as a man, and as a loud mouth radio show producer, I, we, Marc and myself , spoke up, stood up. There are many reasons to do so. Some reasons are simple; what were the guardians of these children staring in this movie thinking when they read this script and allowed their child to play these roles?

But there are many more complex reasons to talk about this, to stand up, and those reasons are more difficult to communicate. We had child-star advocate Paul Petersen of A Minor Consideration on our show to help us understand this new “cult of personality” created by children playing roles more and more frequently cast in adult situations with sexual overtones. He addressed how Hollywood chews up children and spits them out and how North Carolina has suspended the Child Labor laws for the movie industry in order to allow children to work as adults. Hopefully he was able to clear up some issues surrounding this aspect.

Another complex issue this movie brings up is reform. Back in the heyday of Wilmington’s film making history a movie called the Crow was shot at what was then called Carolco Studios, it is now Screen Gems. The Crow had many safety issues the most famous issue was the accidental shooting death of the star Brandon Lee, famous Kung Fu master, Bruce Lee’s son. I met Brandon when he was here, he used to work out at a gym a friend of mine got me to go to once and a while. He was a nice guy, friendly and approachable. But corners were cut and care was not taken on set and Brandon died as a result. No one on the crew from North Carolina was at fault. The blame was at the feet of the producers of this film. Since then the local union, and a Carolco and later Screen Gems employee named Gerald Waller worked to make sure this area would be known for making safety on set a priority.

See even though we, the film makers of North Carolina were not to blame for Brandon Lee’s death, we stood up and rallied to educate a concerned film community. So just as then we need to look at child labor and the use of children in film. This is our opportunity to stand up, to speak up. Why should North Carolina be the place Lolita, Bastard out of Carolina and now Hound Dog come when searching for a location to shoot a movie with scenes of disturbing violence against children? It is a question worth discussing.

But our primary reason for jumping on this story with such passion is because we do a show that spends a lot of time talking about crime in order to bridge a gap between law enforcement and the public. Building trust. We don’t much care about who shot John when and where, we want to know why this crime took place and what is being done to stop it from happening again.

So where does the Blue Line Radio Show fit in regarding Hound Dog? Over the past few years it seems some of our constitutionally protected rights have been eroded away. A combination of controversial art and internet images of children engaged in actual act of sex with adults alarmed Congress to such an extent some laws were created that limit what you can and can not do with children. For instance the child pornography law says the child does not have to be nude, the child does not actually have to be committing a real sex act, the child can just be portrayed as just being involved in a sex act. In fact the exact definition explicit act of sex by the federal government is “actual or simulated” in depictions of the minor child being involved in act of intercourse, masturbation, etc. Actual or simulated.

A woman just pleaded guilty to the federal charges of child pornography because she owned a pay website featuring images of her 10 year old daughter dressed.. not nude but clothed. But because this website catered to a select group of individuals that most likely had issues with fantasy this woman was sentenced to 12 years in prison. Twelve years for non-nude images of a 10 year old girl.

Now the exact same law can be used against the makers of Hound Dog. Certainly if this woman can go prison for 12 years for recording her daughter on film in non-sexually explicit acts then what about a movie that portrays a 9 year old girl doing a strip show for tickets to see Elvis, what about a movie that shows this girl force 2 other children at gunpoint to strip naked and touch each other?

WHAT ABOUT PICTURES I TAKE OF MY SON IN THE BATH TUB? Or my daughter in her dance costume and post it on my myspace.com website?

If you convict one, the Law tells me you must convict all. If a segment of the population is targeted for selling crack on the street corners why not enforce the same laws in the law offices, real estate offices, swanky restaurants and bars at Wrightsville Beach?

You think we are getting heat from this Dakota thing, wait until we blow the lid off who is doing drugs in Wilmington and who is turning the other way. We will be dead before we get out of the parking lot. And why is that? All too often money and politics interfere with the administration of Justice handcuffing law enforcement .

The idea that the movie industry has special favors is troubling.

Since day one all we have asked for is an investigation. Go to our archives and review our shows, watch the news interviews on WECT and WWAY, we have said from the beginning that we want an investigation. That’s it.

Make a decision is it a crime or not? Be public about it because I sure don’t want to go to prison for something someone else skated past with community blessings.

I mean I’m not saying I will do a movie featuring similar scenes as described in the Hound Dog script but if I did, I bet I would be shipped to sing-sing faster than you could say, Kiddie Porn.

The sad thing is if I wasn’t sent to prison I would most likely become a very rich man. Sad indeed. But also true.

As a psychology major, and a child advocate, with a history of counseling children struggling to survive sexual abuse, I find the script to have absolutely no scholarly solutions, as it claims, to address such issues portrayed by this film’s director/writer in her script. Whether or not I find this movie artistic or even tolerable is based on opinion. My expert opinion is reserved for the film’s ability to follow thru with their claim of it being an oasis to those who have suffered childhood abuse. That part I can back up because this movie will fail to bring hope to the victims of child abuse.

The rest is really up to you. The laws governing obscenity gauge what is right or wrong based on community standards. A motion picture image of a 9 year-old child watching her father masturbate is something that you need to determine whether or not it is something you can live with and perhaps defend. Because once this image is signed off on, by this community and others, you can bet your last dollar that more will follow.

So what do you think? Does this film offer artistic merit? Is it educationally beneficial to survivors of childhood sexual abuse? Is it something that is just wrong and should not be allowed into your community because it is obscene? Let us know, let us all know would you.

Comments

[Alf Omega]

I can't speak for what happened on the sets of Bastard out of Carolina or Hound Dog, but I did work on the set of Lolita and I know that no laws were broken and no minors were used in scenes simulating sex. A 20 yead-old body double was used in any and all scenes of a sexual nature and any scene that even bordered on being close to intimate that involved 15 year old Dominique Swain was videotaped to provide evidence that she was never put in a compromising position adn in fact never even made physical contact with Jeremy Irons.

One may question the subject matter of the film, or find it distasteful, but it did not violate any laws.

And, for the record, while Lolita did prep in North Carolina, only bout 20 out of 120 days were shot in North Carolina. All the scenes that were shot in North Carolina take place in the story before Lolita's mother is killed and before she and Humbert Humbert begin their "relationship". Nothing of a sexual nature between the two characters was even filmed in North Carolina at all.

The rest of the film was shot in South Carolina, New Orleans and other parts of Louisiana, San Antonio, Houston, El Paso and other parts of Texas, Las Cruces, New Mexico and yes - it ended up in San Francisco and northern California on the Pacific Coast Highway. So pointing the finger at Lolita for supposedly choosing North Carolina because of lax child labor laws is to miss the mark by quite a wide margin. That just wasn't the case.

Just wanted to set the record straight on Lolita - which can now be safely excluded from this discussion.

[Tre Benson]

Thanks Alf for enlightening us about the Lolita movie not shooting the sex scenes here in North Carolina. I'm curious about the other states and their child labor laws.

Did you know that in post the editors had a lawyer with them in the suite overseeing all footage. Immediately destroying questionable material? This material included the scenes shot with the body double.

The reason why the attorney suggested they do away with the sex scenes is because the use of an adult in place of a minor does not allow the producers to escape the child pornography law. What did allow them to escape the law is the destruction of the evidence authorities never were interested enough to go after in the first place. It is against the law for an adult to portray a minor involved in a sex act.

Wasn't the hotel stuff shot in the mountains of NC? If not where was it shot?

What about the scene that took place at Lo's house prior to her mother dying? The scene I am talking about is the first encounter between Humbert and Lo. It involved a foot.

Thanks again Alf.

[Alf Omega]

The CHILD PORNOGRAPHY PREVENTION ACT of 1996, which made it illegal to have an adult portray a minor in a sexual context, was signed into law after Lolita had completed filming. Those laws weren't in existence duging the filming of the movie. Still the fact that a body double was used in any scene with an explicitly sexual context shows that even before the CHILD PORNOGRAPHY PREVENTION ACT was made into law, the producers and director of the film were already sensitive to the subject and were making attempts to handle the subject matter professionally and ethically and to render no psychological harm to Dominique Swain.

As the law was brand new, that's probably why lawyers were present in the editing room, if that's true. I don't understand why any footage of the body double would be destroyed though, because in and of itself that footage showed nothing illegal. If it were edited into the film and understood to represent a minor, then it could be illegal under that law, but not in its unedited form.

Which "hotel stuff" are you referring to? As the show was a road movie, we shot in numerous hotels, but none of the film was shot in the NC mountains. Some was shot at Chinquapin Plantation, but none of that included the Lolita character.

If you're referring to the hotel with the Sunday comics scene, that was shot in South Carolina with a body double. If you're referring to the hotel where they share a room in a large hotel, that was in Louisiana. If you're referring to the hotel where Humbert has a paranoid delusion about being chased by people in Dick Tracy masks, that was shot in Texas.

I don't remember the specifics of the "foot" scene, but all scenes at Lolita's house were filmed in Wilmington. Iirc, the "foot" scene, while perhaps suggestive, involved no sexual contact.

In any case, it's a misstatement of fact to say that Lolita chose North Carolina to base its produciton in based on anything having to do with lax child labor laws in this state. And as the film provided hundreds of jobs for local craftsmen, we're very lucky that North Carolina was chosen.

[Tre Benson]

Yeah it was the Sunday comics.

I'm not sure what the argument actually is anymore because I have so many of them about this film. (I really need to just pick one thing that bugs me the most and stick with it) So I looked up in the original post and saw the following "Why should North Carolina be the place Lolita, Bastard out of Carolina and now Hound Dog come when searching for a location to shoot a movie with scenes of disturbing violence against children?" I didn't see me saying anything about Child Labor Laws being the cause of Lolita being shot here. I guess I will still stick with that question I quoted. We know that with Lolita nothing pre-1996 law was shot in NC that could be viewed as being illegal. Do you know what the law was prior to 1996? We know that the producers may have selected NC for reasons other than the suspension of Child Labor Laws. What was the reason(s) I wonder.

What we don't know is why those particular movies, every one of them extremely controversial, came to Wilmington? All three of them dealing with the rape of a minor. (2 forced, one unforced but technically still a rape, the character was twelve) Perhaps it is coincidence. Perhaps its because NC is the only right to work State with a decent local crew base. After all that's what brought everyone here in the first place. State film commissioner, Bill Arnold, used to brag that labor costs would save the average production 20% if filmed in NC. (Then the union call to strike the battleship filming, then the SAG strike, then Canada. Then other states offered incentives.) I honestly can't think of examples of other movies along the lines of those three that caused such a stir.

And again you are right saying that Lolita provided a good number of jobs for local craftsmen. But so did the tobacco industry until laws enforced by pompous assed personal injury lawyers did away with all that.

This argument is about taking a look at the law. Either enforce it or take it off the books.

I am not arguing politics or morality. My argument is about the law. What does the law state? Was a law broken? Should the law be changed? That's about it. Everything else is just talk, opinions, ideas, and emotions.

With a pinch of grandstanding. On both sides I might add.

[Alf Omega]

We know that the producers may have selected NC for reasons other than the suspension of Child Labor Laws. What was the reason(s) I wonder.
============

I suppose you could ask that about any film that chooses North Carolina. Like many, the producers of Lolita chose Wilmington for a variety of reasons - the locations, the crewbase, the facilities, etc.

The fact that North Carolina is a right to work state probably played very little if any part in the decision as very little of it was actually shot in North Carolina and almost every department head was brought in from out of state, (mostly from New York) and the entire show was union from the get-go. The same is of course true for virtually every production undertaken in the state for the past 10 years - even including films in the very low budget range and commercials. They all fall under the union umbrella. And while those rates may be lower than in New York and California, so is the cost of living here, which allows you to work for those lower rates and still enjoy a quality standard of living.

=====
We know that with Lolita nothing pre-1996 law was shot in NC that could be viewed as being illegal. Do you know what the law was prior to 1996?

===========
I don't know. But if none of the 1996 laws were broken, I don't think any laws that existed prior to those were broken either. The 1996 legislation was the most far-reaching of its kind and in fact was later repealed by the Supreme Court for First Amendment violations. It was later amended and re-passed in 2005, I believe, but with few if any real changes. It is believed the current law may again come under Supreme Court scrutiny for similar reasons.

The reason I was addressing Lolita was because it seems that your lumping these films together as a whole creates a kind of historical foundation for North Carolina being chosen as the location for films that exploit children and push the envelope of the law, when in fact nothing of the sort happened with Lolita, not in North Carolina, and to my knowledge, while Bastard out of Carolina may also contain similar subject matter, again no laws were broken in its production. You're trying to make a case for multiple violations of the law when in fact Hound Dog may be the only legitimate case for discussion.

==========
And again you are right saying that Lolita provided a good number of jobs for local craftsmen. But so did the tobacco industry until laws enforced by pompous assed personal injury lawyers did away with all that.
==========

I hope the same doesn't happen to the North Carolina film industry, being bombarded by attacks from self-righteous do-gooders who attack the entire industry based on the actions of a very miniscule minority, when they know very little about the true nature of the industry as a whole and base their assumumtions on tabloid exaggerations and mistaken stereotypes.

[Tre Benson]

No argument from me. But keep in mind my fight is with what is legal and what is not.

I think all the rest of this, fanning of flames, is one side overstating the misperception of the other.

Do you really believe what you just said?

"I hope the same doesn't happen to the North Carolina film industry, being bombarded by attacks from self-righteous do-gooders who attack the entire industry based on the actions of a very minuscule minority, when they know very little about the true nature of the industry as a whole and base their assumptions on tabloid exaggerations and mistaken stereotypes."

I am fairly confident the industry has survived much worse than this and sees none of this as a genuine threat.

Don't get me wrong, this is a very legitimate argument about what is legal and what is not when it comes to placing children in adult situations for money, not art. Be it under a helicopter at 3 in the morning surrounded by sfx explosives, or a casting call for a 9 year old dominatrix. This unchallenged crack in the door is potentially dangerous, you have to admit it has become more and more exploitive. If this movie Hound Dog were to be used as a talking point then perhaps the issues of child advocates might carry a bit more weight. And in my mind how the discussion comes about is secondary to the real fight.

Let the tabloids reinforce the stereotypes. Who cares. Do all athletes do steroids? All super models coke fiends? Rock stars overdose? Producers big fat stogie smoking lying mobsters take advantage of everyone? This all adds to the mystique. Movie magic I guess.

But when push comes to shove none of us are as foolish as we appear, we all basically know the truth if we look for it hard enough. I suspect you have a good grasp of it yourself.

[Steve]

Another thing, "Alf Omega": Who cares how much of the movie was shot in North Carolina...or on the Moon? I'm from Houston myself and, while I'm disturbed to know that any of that sick movie was made here at all, all this does is illustrate that fact that the problem is nation-wide.

No one's dumping on North Carolina as the only place that this can happen... only that a lot of it has. That only means that the Tarheel State is a good place to start the ball rolling. I'd say that even if the latest outrage (Hounddog) hadn't been filmed there.

But it was. And, so far, they've gotten clean away with it in spite of state and federal laws to the contrary. This is the key damn point. If children are to be protected from sex purveyors, then let Wilmington be the "Lexington" of this new and, yes, righteous war. You can't get much more "righteous" than with something like this.

"Lolita" also serves to bring forth another of my favorite points. Depravity unchecked only leads to more and greater depravity.

Jack Valenti, the recently retired "Czar" of Hollywood, introduced the ratings system back in the early Sixties that allowed semi-porn like "Lolita" to be legally packaged for the public. Everyone knows what's followed in it's wake. Now we have "Hounddog". If this passes muster, what will follow... unchecked?

And where do we go to find the central culprits? As another great radio host likes to say, "Follow the money"!

[Alf Omega]

It is yet to be shown that anything illegal occurred in the filming of Hound Dog. Nothing of the kind occurred in the making of Lolita. Nothing of the kind occurred in the making of Bastard out of Carolina either, to my knowledge.

By calling attention to the fact that nothing untoward in Lolita was filmed in North Carolina, and that none of the scenes filmed anywhere broke any laws, I mean to dispell the erroneous impression you have, and as has been put forth by the purveyors of this website, that "a lot" of films of this nature have been made in North Carolina. 3 movies that are even subject to question over the past 20+ years the film industry has been prevalent in North Carolina, from the hundreds of movies that have been filmed here, hardly constitutes a trend or a cause to pinpoint North Carolina as ground zero in your crusade.

While you may find the subject matter of these films objectionable, that doesn't mean that they are necessarily illicit, pornographic or illegal.

If you want to start a crusade, do it in your community, where you may have some impact. No need to point the finger at a state 1200 miles away and attempt to vilify others when there is plenty to be self-righteous about in your own backyard.

[Steve]

Alf Omega:

I think I've made it abundantly clear that I haven't "pinpointed" North Carolina as the root of all evil. Far from it. The point is that one of the greatest outrages against children in moviemaking that I have ever heard of has apparently happened right there in Wilmington. That's why I'm focussing THERE... not in Muncie, Indiana.

If it had happened in Houston, I'd be no less engaged. Moreso, if anything, because I'd be right there onscene and know who to contact personally. Nor would I in any way be offended if out-of-state people, motivated with my same concerns, were to add their support. I've spoken to good people as far away as Kazakhstan who share the same attitude. God bless them. Of course, I wish a whole lot more that it had never happened- and never could happen- anywhere on Earth.

To anyone who's sifted the evidence, gained an insight into the backgrounds of the principals, reviewed the opinions of responsible journalists and competant, film-wise reviewers and commentators, studied the state and federal laws and likewise evaluated the testimonies of witnesses and others who have knowledge of this occurance and others like it... well, I'd say there's plenty of room for concern and more than enough reason to investigate it thoroughly.

A Crusade? Maybe. Considering the consequences to children of doing nothing, I'll go with that. Certainly, the subject matter of "Hounddog" is objectionable... to say the very least. "Illicit, pornographic or illegal"? There's far more than a reasonable doubt, here. If any allegation brought forth is true- just any ONE of them- then it is all of that.

This is not a matter of "self-righteousness". That's the usual lefty accusation when someone uses the dreaded words "common decency". Nor is it just a matter of respecting the laws of this nation... although that's enough. It's about protecting our most valuable resource.

As I've said previously, this is what adults are FOR. If we fail to stand up to predators and protect our kids- and if we try to wimp out of it with specious excuses- then we're no better than the parents of those three children in "Hounddog" who prostituted them on film with dollar signs in their eyes.

Again; there's more than a reasonable doubt. Well more. To try and fluff it off is more than irresponsible. It is criminal.