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

« SCENE 39 IS MISSING | Main | Still a Bunch of Questions »

January 29, 2007

Comments

Lee

She says she does not see the scene/movie as controversial, yet admits "so many people said no" during a ten year period. I feel like for whatever reason she seems to truely believe that everything that happened to get this film made was okay. She feels this "epidemic" issue will begin to be resolved when the world sees her film.
Who will heal from viewing this movie? I would not allow my daughter to see a film of this nature. I know people who have been sexually abused, the biggest obstacle from justice seemed to be their mother's denial. In two of the cases it was not because the girls were motherless. To me, it seemed more like the mothers felt that admitting this abuse would show them as failures.
What will happen to those who see this movie? Artsy/ hippies will become sad. Abused women will become sickened again. Perverts will become educated on methods in creating "art".
I guess the film doesn't matter to me. I won't see it. I've seen enough. Even novels on the subject can create nausea. It irritates me that citizens asked for the law to be respected and investigated, yet by the time those in position to do anything acted, it may have been too late.

Steven Mark Pilling

Dear Lee:

I agree with your observations and sentiments... all but one.

Like you, I kept Hollywood- it's depraved works and affairs- out of mind for years due to sheer disgust. I don't anymore. I don't dare. It took something like "Hounddog" to make me see that filmmakers had gone beyond being a matter of scorn. They have become a direct threat to the moral and physical safety of America's children. Not just one poor, exploited and mixed-up child actress- not even the 7,500 registered child actors in films and television- but all of them... and chiefly for the reasons you've just stated.

Let's not turn away from this again. If we don't take a stand here, the legitimization of child sex in films WILL become a reality. We've won a rear-guard action at Sundance- at best. Now's the time to take the offensive. If we don't, they will.

Susan Sinigaglio

Dakota has most certainly been exploited by her pimp of a mother, not unlike the selfish mothers who offer up their sons and daughters to pedophilic spouses and boyfriends with no thought to the childs needs. I do hope scene 39 is further persued and those responsible are persecuted. No amount of financial gain is worth what has been done to Dakota, the childhood innocence that has been stolen from her. But then, Holywood is known for eating it's young.

Steven Mark Pilling

Isn't it just, Susan? Child actors being mercilessly exploited by their agents and parents, their spurred on blindly by the prospect of vast wealth, is a phenomenon as old as the theater itself! In Hollywood, it goes all the way back to the silent era!

The beginning of SEXUAL exploitation began primarily in the Sixties with the Supreme Court's legalization of porn, the advent of Jack Valenti in Hollywood and the institution of the modern ratings system. It has slowly advanced since then in the popular culture until, at last, we find ourselves here... with children committing sexual enactments with adults on set.

Like I've said before, "Hounddog" had to happen. It was only a matter of time. Depravity-unchecked-only leads to more and greater depravity.

Amber

From what Kampmeier said Dakota wasn't exploited during filming. I find that the issue is not whether she was exploited, but rather the moral one about if she should have even played a character like this.
Name calling is unnecessary, as I have read your posts, and instead lets focus on the REAL issue, being a moral one. I agree that she should not have done the film, but I know that she was not exploited, either.

As for this movie helping anybody, the people I know who have been sexually abused would NOT go see a film like this. It does NOT help them heal. At best this film will spread awareness about sexual abuse, mostly nothing more.

Terry Moore

What would you expect a person that committed a felony to say?

But you are right lets talk about this as a moral issue, why would anyone allow her to do this, her or any 12 year old.

Plus all the other kids thatwere in the movie too.

But I have a moral problem with the DA not doing anything for 5 months. That gave the director and them plenty of time to make some changes and do a little cover-up!

Steven Mark Pilling

Dear Amber: The real issue IS a moral issue. That's exactly what I've been trying to say! That she and two other child actors were sexually exploited in a cheap, sleazy film provides the very basis for moral outrage. Nor will it "raise awareness". See my previous comments. Otherwise, I agree with you and Terry.

Becky

Protest of tax dollars supporting Sundance Film Festival

By Ed Thomas

February 12, 2007

A pro-family group is protesting that Sundance, the annual independent film festival that premiered controversial films containing a sexual assault of a minor and bestiality in 2007, received tax dollars for its presentation this year.

American Family Association (AFA) reports the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) gave between $100,000 and $249,000 to help underwrite the festival. They say the Public Broadcasting System (PBS) also added between $50,000 and $99,000.

This year’s Sundance Festival premiered Hounddog, a movie featuring actress Dakota Fanning as a 12-year-old rape victim ; and Zoo, a documentary about bestiality between a man and a horse.

Because the NEA, PBS, and PBS parent Corporation for Public Broadcasting receive tax dollars, AFA says Americans should write their senators and representatives and demand that millions of tax dollars not be donated for the liberal projects the organizations support. As non-profit corporations, AFA says they should receive their funding from public donations instead.

© 2007 AgapePress all rights

Steven Mark Pilling

Dear Becky: Thank you for tracking down that article. In the only account I found, none of the organizations were mentioned. This is why, for so long, so many have called for and petitioned our elected officials to, not just curtail, but eliminate altogether the NEA and government participation in PBS. Not only, we said, is it a waste of taxpayer money, but an insult to the values of taxpaying citizens. How many outrages like this does it take to make that case?

Steven Mark Pilling

For those of you who are not yet aware of the latest from The Motion Picture Group (the co-producers of "Hounddog") and the award given to Deborah Kampmeier (yes!) from the Volkswagen Company, here is a email I sent to Henri Kessler, the president of TMPG, in response this morning.

Sir:

I have just completed reading the Business Wire article dated yesterday concerning the film "Hounddog" which your company eventually co-produced. I also noted with amusement that your company will now finance a new film by Deborah Kampmeier called "Split".

It can only be speculated on what "Split" means, given the direction of that woman's previous cinematic efforts. Adding to that her abilities, motivations and success rate, it appears, on the face of it, to amount to another full-fledged disaster. Obviously, the moral aspects of Mz Kampmeier's work does not deter you. One would think, however, since a basic objective of any firm must be to turn a profit, that the lesson of "Hounddog" would not have been lost on you. It seems to have been here. Or, perhaps, you are so wedded to your anti-traditionalist philosophies that you are unable to prevent yourself from throwing good money after bad.

I found Mz Kampmeier's statement, upon receiving VW's "Relentless Drive Award" (!) to be a revealing study in verbal duplicity. In her (and your) world, the rejection of her film by critics (in the technical sense) and by the public (in the moral sense) amounted to "silencing"! Kampmeier continues to wrap herself in the pathos of a persecuted artist, making no mention at all of the sexual scenes to which three child actors were subjected. Instead, it was about music! It was about Dakota Fanning's "brilliance"... a Hollywood term for self-degradation. As at that infamous press conference at Sundance, she continues to hide behind the ghost of Elvis Presley and an emotionally (and career) damaged child actress; the latter being a condition of her own creation. To refer to this woman as "despicable" is to vastly understate the case.

The words of your friend and associate Trevor Goth in his "synopsis" of "Hounddog" is likewise revealing. Scenes of graphic sex and violence directed against children become, in his universe, "innocent sexual games"! Dakota's role is "immensely challenging"... another Hollywood euphemism meaning "down and dirty". Then there's Kampmeier's "delicate touch". That comes close to matching Cindy Osbrink's "tastefully done" remark in her intial response to "Hounddog's" outing on July 20th... words that went far into crystallizing the anti-Hounddog movement. And, yes, that film did indeed "leave audiences shaken to their core". Even the insulated and elitist crowds at Sundance walked out of the theater stunned at the level of depravity they'd witnessed. They're parents, too.

And this was from the "sanitized" version! After at least three major edits (the last just prior to the festival's opening), what was presented was still ugly beyond the words of many. Indeed, what can really be done to morally rehabilitate a movie that was based exclusively on the themes of child sex and degeneracy? Once again, this only renews speculation as to what was, as Sean Hannity put it, "left on the cutting room floor". Those of us who have followed the story since the summer of 2006 have long since learned much about that. As I have said on many occasions, "Hounddog" represents the first time in the history of American feature films that children have been involved DIRECTLY in on-set sexual enactments with adults... and even with each other! Only in the rankest pornography has this ever before occured.

This is the barrier that Deborah Kampmeier has broken. The legitimization of child sex on film has been attempted... and has only narrowly failed. Children were used in an unprecedented manner and in a way that no morally straight adult could countenance... and this DID succeed in evading legal retribution. This attempt was also eventually aided and abetted by you and your organization. I can only conclude from your ongoing association with Mz Kampmeier that you intend to support another such effort.

Please rest assured that the story and lessons of "Hounddog" have not been lost on many of us. We recognize (as you do not) that an adult's highest calling is the protection, nurturement and moral guidance of children. You and those like you would relegate them to objects of utility. Children are not "little adults", Mr. Kessler. They are human beings in the process of development. By participating in "Hounddog", you have contributed to the traumatization of three of them; abetting their exposure to situations and concepts that children are unequipped by experience and nature to cope with. And, though them, you would extend that corruption to other children who would have found a way to see the film, if for no other reason than that Dakota Fanning was in it. If "Hounddog" goes to DVD (and I assume it will), this will still happen.

To those of us who care for children, such actions are monstrous. They are also incomprehensible. It is hard for us to understand such a mentality and motivation as it is to rationalize Moslem fanatics who send children out to blow themselves up. In the spiritual sense, there's little to choose between you. Or, maybe, you're even worse in that regard. You endanger children's hearts and souls for profit. Even the mullahs can't be charged with that.

Fine company you keep.

Sincerely yours;

Steven Mark Pilling

Steven Mark Pilling

This letter was posted to District Attorney Rex Gore about two months ago.

Sir:

Having read your official statement in response to the "Hounddog" affair, I was truely aghast at what I was reading. Somehow, you have come to the opinion that the use of children in a cheap, vile sex movie- one based entirely on themes of child sex and degeneracy- has some "artistic value". You also say that "simulated sexual activity" alone is not a basis for prosecution.

Mr. Gore- if it's not, then when does it become so? Do we have to witness the ACTUAL violation of a little girl on-screen to satisfy the State's legal requirements? Isn't it enough that children were used in such a manner as to expose them to the great danger of emotional trauma, the real danger of character contamination as adults and stalker threats- all of which are the historic consequences of such events? And may I remind you that this doesn't even begin to address the question of what happened to three child actors on the set of that film- before the editing process occured? In that sense, there is evidence to suggest that those activities crossed the barrier into actual child pornography. What happened on the set, sir, transcends what is seen in the final released film.

Yet you go on to cite, as a justification for your inaction, that this is acceptable to "the average person applying contemporary community standards". What community, Mr. Gore? Greenwich Village? Hyannisport? San Francisco? Or maybe Bangkok? Surely you don't mean to suggest that the average American citizen would accept the use of children to directly simulate sex with adults on a movie set? Not anybody's children, sir- any more than we would our very own- let me assure you.

And, last but not least, you offer the same, tired excuse that Hollywood was historically offered for it's depravity. That's the old "it'll raise awareness" ploy. Sir; we are both aware of the fact that it will do nothing of the sort. Depravity and pornography in the popular culture over the years has spawned crimes against women and children to unprecedented levels. The connection is clear. Depravity- unchecked- only leads to more and greater depravity. Thus, with films like "Pretty Baby", "The Bastard Out Of Carolina" (both filmed in Wilmington!) and "Taxi Driver", we have finally arrived at "Hounddog"... and the legitimization of child sex in the "mainstream".

You could have helped to stop it, sir, with a sense of duty (to your own children, if nothing else) and a little moral courage. Instead, you have left this task of the protection of our most dear innocents to private citizens. So be it. We'll take up the challenge that you shrank from. We've been doing so for the last seven months. We'll continue to.

The children of America, though, will have no cause to thank you. By your unmindfulness, you have endangered them all.

Yours truely;

Steven Mark Pilling

Just thought I'd share that with you. It was probably deleted after his secretary read the first paragraph!

well dakota can go on and make all the foul movies she can think of now right she doing wing- what ever now and that one is no better then what hounddog is and elle fanning is in babl she has no top on running araound in her underwear y not no one care ahahah and get payed for it. hey all over the cuntrey there are nud beches kids/adults together and nud there not doing anything about that hey we can't fined a cour for aids or cancer but we can shere as hell make a pill that can geve ya stand up power for the rich and old prv's. and insted of telling our kids in school not to have sex there showing them how to masterbate and do oral sex with rubbers aha dam we are a sick buch. what thell going on here i think hollywood want our kids what you think

Me

"In that sense, there is evidence to suggest that those activities crossed the barrier into actual child pornography"

What evidence? Dozens of people saying it didn't happen? There has never been any evidence other than statements made by UNKNOWN crew members who claimed they were on the set and say a naked Dakota Fanning acted out a violent rape which we know was not true.

"Thus, with films like "Pretty Baby", "The Bastard Out Of Carolina" (both filmed in Wilmington!)"

At least get your facts straight before you spew this nonsense. Pretty Baby was filmed in New Orleans in 1978. The lot where Screen Gems was built was still swampland. There was no film business in Wilmington back in 1978.

"we have finally arrived at "Hounddog"... and the legitimization of child sex in the "mainstream".

How do you explain movies like Kids, Ken Park, Born Innocent, Angela, Blue Lagoon, Lolita, Skipped Parts, and hundreds other similar movies released before Hounddog? It's not even close to being the first movie with sexual elements involving kids and minors. All of these movies were legal too.

"Skipped Parts" was on the tv a few nights ago. There is a scene when the 14 year old boy wakes up and finds semen all over his stomach, he wipes it off with a sock, then goes down to his mom and ask her to explain this, she touches the sock, smells her finger, puts it in her mouth and says "have you been masturbating?" The boy and 14 year old girl have sex several times, they are on screen several times nude or wearing nothing but underwear, they undress and the girl touches him, he tells her it will get hard if you put it in your mouth, he has sexual fantasies about a nurse (played by Drew Barrymore), the girl gets pregnant and has a baby at 14, this was on regular tv, and you think Hounddog is the worst thing ever made? Wake up and get a clue.

Steven Mark Pilling

Dear Me:

I'm under time constraints, here, so I'll have to be brief. I was under the impression that "Pretty Baby" was filmed in Wilmington. If not- fine. My mistake. That does not, however, delete the fact that it was filmed in the first place, which is the key concern! You bare your Hollywood-oriented mentality when you cite all those films as containing child sex... and then consider them as an excuse for "Hounddog"! They are nothing of the sort. They are merely markers on the road that led to "Hounddog". They are not an excuse, but a litany of shame. Only a pure-bred humanist would regard them as anything else.

Steve.
yep thers alot of movies there that should be band.
most of them go right to dvd Y what are they hiding.
them Aholes make the kids think its not happing to them but it is. then they want to know Y every one is upset hmm.

Steven Mark Pilling

Dear Aubrey: Like I've said, the silence from these people is deafening right now. They've "gone to ground" again, as they did since Tre and Lloyd Grove first exposed them and prior to the advent of the Sundance Film Festival. Likely, they're afraid of another "outing" as The Motion Picture Group quietly re-edits "Hounddog" once again in hopes of attracting a distributor. Since we're not Hollywood insiders, the most we can do right now is wait and listen. The other things we can do is keep correspondence going with other concerned people and organizations. That; plus keeping watch for other "copycat" crimes of that nature. We've helped to surprise and delay them, but we haven't stopped them. Until we see the filmmakers and their associates in a courtroom (or, better, in jail!) and as long as Hollywood thinks there's a buck to be made by child exploitation, they'll continue to try. Let's stay vigilant, then! Best regards.

Steven.
ya i gess your right. Y cry about it. if they was going to do anything about it' it would have ben done.
but Y white until they reedit the the scens
its all over this childstar website to what they do on set to all these kids.
i said it befor its nothing but softporn
and they get away with everything over seas.
is this what hollywood is working up to.
to sale our kids for the buck. lol like they rely care about the kids.
what they did to brooks should have put them injail. if its illagel to have her nud photo of her when she was 12 on your computer then they shouldent get way with saleing it or putting it on display in a museum. and some of these movies have nud or mimi nud photo of kids and they are filmed in the usa.

Steven.
lol where do you think ME is. i think if every one said we had enough of it' tell them to put a stop all the softporn in movies not just with kids but all and the girls gone wild on tv.
theyd have too we do stell run this cuntry right we the pepole.

Steven Mark Pilling

Dear Aubrey:

The money and, thus, the inherent power of Hollywood is a pretty awesome thing. The film industry is a hundred year old institution that has captivated this country... and now as never before.

Consider, too, the fact that the entire popular culture (and more) is all tied together in financial and corporational bonds. It's not just the studios, but television, theaters, fashion, photography, professional sports, newspapers, theme parks, popular music... Las Vegas! On and on. Every phase of entertainment is commercially intertwined.

Major owners include electonics firms like Sony and General Electric. Through the newpapers, magazines and television comes all our knowledge and, with it, the reporters and columnists who can sway people's very outlook on right and wrong. Their tentacles reach into a bewildering array of the facets of our daily lives.

Then there are the sponsors, who include just about every otherwise disassociated corporation in America and beyond. Major foreign cartels (like Sony again) actually sit atop the power pyramid. And, through these overseas ties come their values... or lack thereof.

Remember; what we consider as being inappropriate for or with children has a different meaning in Europe or East Asia. In Europe, children have been displayed as cinematic sex objects for decades. We're talking about a "continent" that has come to speak of itself as "Post-Christian". In Asia, children have always been sexualized into prehistory.

All that financial power, plus the veneer of "glamor", translates into political power. Fantastic political power. Hollywood money, either corporationally or through the "contributions" of celebrities, has become the mainstay of at least one political party in this country... and that one now controls Congress. Those links furthermore extend to state and local politics. That means attorneys general, governors, judges, mayors, district attorneys, sheriffs & constables and school board members. It extends from them to appointed officials such as judges (again), supervisors of law enforcement agencies and even public child protection departments.

Is it really any wonder that prosecutors like Rex Gore and Ben David sat on the "Hounddog" case for months? Or that Attorneys General like Roy Cooper or Mark Shurtleff in Utah either stayed quiet or actually made statements in support? You don't bite the hand that feeds you.

About all these people don't control is churches and private, faith-based organizations. At least, not all of them!

That's the kind of power we face. And it's a monster of our own making. Through carelessness and inattention, we've allowed it to grow and prosper until, now, it virtually controls us. This is no small task we face.

The challenges against children's innocence are deeply entrenched. "Hounddog" gave us a belated warning... just like the lookout on the "Titanic" yelling "iceberg dead ahead"! Let's hope there's still time to avoid a major societal catastrophe.

Steven Mark Pilling

Dear Tre, Aubrey, Patti and all the other posters on Crimeblogs (friend or foe!!): The very happiest and safest of Independence Days to you and your families.

TO ALL
HAPPY Independence Days /4TH
HELP KEDIS SAFE.MAKE THIS A BETTER PLACES TO LIVE FOR ALL..

oops help keep our kids safe

lol i have coffe on my kyebord and its hard to type ahahaha..

Steven Mark Pilling

I'll certainly echo that, Aubrey. And that's what happens when you overfill your cup!

Note of interest: Joy Fanning, the mother/manager of Dakota, turned 40 on July 1st. How the onset of middle age has effected her can only be speculated on. Maybe she'll decide to have a few more kids while she still can! After all, now she now knows so much about what NOT to do with children... one would hope.

steve
she needs a spanken for putting her kids through this but her kids are maken money
so she dont have to ahhahah..
and it cant be all that bad she is stell acting and more movies are being made by her
and elle i found a lot of links to this website where the childstars post there movies and screen caps there deleting any bad stuff they did and and removen any movies that have this kind of stuff like hounddog what do ya think there hiden i got to download and run some of the movies and the they deleted some of the scens from them so ya there covering there tracks there realy good at that well alot of it was becouse of the out cry of hounddog and i pry to god they dont go as far as they did over sea iv scen some of there movies and its way over the top with the kids in movies there its sad to think they will stop at nughting to make money or fam and then they play it off like its ok its just acting and then hide it ahaha o well

Steven Mark Pilling

I bet you're talking about the Enchanting Starz website.

steve no this is the one Me,, posted her with all the child stars and the movies they made

Steven Mark Pilling

There are a lot of sites like that. MyMovies, IMDB, Rotten Tomatoes, Young Stars, etc.

Me

"if its illagel to have her nud photo of her when she was 12 on your computer then they shouldent get way with saleing it or putting it on display in a museum. and some of these movies have nud or mimi nud photo of kids and they are filmed in the usa."

Nude pictures of minors is NOT illegal. Just google Sally Mann, David Hamilton, or Jock Sturges. The Supreme Court has ruled that non-sexual nudity is not against the law so having a nude picture of Brook Shields from a movie still is not illegal.

Tre Benson

True none of those "artists" work is illegal. However those images can be used as evidence against you when you are fighting your 12 yr old nieces charges that you molested her. Innocent or not it's not a good idea to have those images on your computer... or under your matress.

Good luck with the "art collector" defense.

Me

AGREED,

It's not a good idea if your molesting your 12 year old niece to have nude pics around.

Aubrey said it was illegal to have a picture of Brooke Shields I assume was captured from the movie Pretty Baby. That's not true providing you have done nothing wrong and are not molesting family members. I'm going to have to rent this movie some day to see what all the hoopla is about, I saw parts on Lifetime Channel not too long ago, it looked old and dated, quite boring.

Me/Steve..

Aubrey said it was illegal to have a picture of Brooke Shields I assume was captured from the movie Pretty Baby..

if you dident see the frist movie of
Pretty Baby then you wonte see what happend in this movies becouse it has ben edited.

Child moddel websites..
family nude beaches..
simulated sex with adults/ kids in movies..

are they illegal ??

child moddle websites..
a lady went to jail for salen photos of her daughter on line..

becouse they said it was Pornograph she was in a swimsute NOT nud how can that be.. its they way they take the photos makes it child exploitation. but its ok to film a 12 year old brooks in
Pretty Baby bing shaved by a man she was nud. bing humped haven simulated sex she was the only one nud in this scen/ then stends up in a tub nud turns around in front of a man and a lady that walks in on her. brooks is nud in not one movie but 2 of them haven sex. then nud photo shoots and then salen the one photo of the tub scene nud to a museum for over 150.000.00 bucks.. is this child exploitation. ?? if so when they sale the movie hounddog wonte that be
child exploitation bing what she was called to do in all the scens. simulated or not.

ME.Steve.try
help me under stand the law lol.
hi try lov your shows


Me

"child moddle websites..
a lady went to jail for salen photos of her daughter on line..

becouse they said it was Pornograph she was in a swimsute NOT nud how can that be.."

The pictures on that site focused on the genital area of the child even tho the child was clothed. Child porno consist of actual or simulated sexual activity or lewd exposure of the genital area. The website was also setup to look like an adult porn site which applied the prudent interest of the viewer standard.

Movies do not appeal to the prudent sexual interest of the viewer, there is not a focus on the genital erea even if gentials are exposed, and a main stream movie is not marketed as child porno. If they have a picture of a child in a lewd photo on the cover of the dvd, like standing a certain way and with their legs spread apart that would be simular to marketing the movie as porno. None of these movies do that.

Steven Mark Pilling

Dear "Me":

What you mean is, the scenes were edited so as not to show genitals, etc. Now consider how they had to be shot in the first place to get the raw footage to edit in the first place (as with the "Hounddog Rape Scene"). Consider what it does to child actors' minds and future adult selves to be in such scenes, their being perfectly aware of what it means, what it is conveying to the audience (forever on film) and how they are being degraded in the process. Note also that genitals don't have to be shown to perverts to set their fevered imaginations off. The storyline and the nudity itself is enough.

This is what Tre meant in his opening monologue on the "Legal Child Porn" thread. The Supreme Court has set some very liberal (and very disturbing) definitions on what constitutes adult and child porn. Many the problems we face with sex crimes in this nation spring from the initial 60's ruling that protected pornography under "free speech". It not only left women, young and old, open to crimes and exploitation. It also, as it had to, opened the door to the slow, but inexorable advance of child sexual exploitation.

The latest ruling restricted some forms of child porn, but left vast loopholes open in the process. The worst, for the future in any case, is the allowance of child porn in ilustrations and, worst of all, in computer graphics. Unless this is dealt with quickly, and considering the increasing advance in this technology, this is going to be a vast new media for porn of all kinds...if the ruling stands.

For the present, the legal loopholes that prevail today are horrendous enough. They must be closed and those who pander them prosecuted. Our children's hearts and minds are at terrible risk.

Me.
ok the cammra was on the brooks and the man in the act of sex she was fully nud he was not but they made it look like he was humping on her as they got walk in on he jumps off her and runds out the point here is just becouse it a movie its stell soft porn simulated or not.
screen caps of this could not be posted it would be child exploitation right ??

steven.
couldent have siad it better my self

Steven Me try anyone
did ya see this movie Pretty Baby its way over the top this is soft porn how did they get away with this movie and what they did to brooks man this is a bad movie its not somthing you would let your kids see

WOW WEEEEE.
it shows a man between brooks lags on the bed her nud. he is humpping her they show the hole scene in this shot you can see whats going on so this tells me what they put her through what about that Me.
is this child exploitation ?? or softporn
she was only 12 in this movie

Me

Your going to force me to watch this movie. I tried to watch it when it was playing on regular cable but it was boring. Same with Taxi Driver, I just couldn't get into the movie because it was old and dated. Considering that both movies are available at most video stores that answers your question as to wether it was legal.

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

“The scene was never run through from start to finish; it was shot in increments, over and over, never in a single take. The construction creates the impression of the violence, but doesn’t represent the feeling on the set or something that might have traumatized Dakota, especially since there had been so much rehearsal.

“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.

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.


Me.
so whats your point in last post ahaha.
you dont get it do you ME..
i told you what i saw its real the man was on brooks no wate. between her lags and she was nud. hummping on her. had a lady shaven brooks lags. and private. and she is nud. they show the hole thing. there not hiden it here. its brooks in this movie its not a set in. its her at 12 YEARS old
there this is what hollywood dose to our kids they cross the line with brooks meny years ago. its not what you see in the final cut but what they did to get what they have now. its what they did in the private on set out takes. somthing had to happen when filmming hounddog or all of us would not be here hey mybe not as bad but from what iv sceen in this movie with brooks ITS [ANYTHING GOS IN HOLLWOOD] or you dont get the part ahaha.
david mors had to have a lead role with dakota ahah i gess he dident have enough of her in dreamer. and ill bet you dident have to brake his arm when ask to do this foul movie with dakota ahaha. ill bet he ask to be in this movie ahaha.

http://www.apple.com/finalcutstudio/finalcutpro/

Steven Mark Pilling

I see that "Me" is retreating to his old Kampmeier-style "it was shot increments" hogwash. This is not claymation we're talking about, partner. This is actual, live FILMATION involving children and adult actors- both interacting, both in advanced stages of undress and both perfectly aware of what they are interacting about- TOGETHER.

Nor does (incredibly!) "much rehersal" provide any amelioration or excuse. Exactly the opposite. All it achieves with children is to deaden the shock of the on-set encounter. It does nothing to help the child deal with the memories, along with the attendant guilt and shame that inevitably follows such actions. To call such things "unconscionable" is to vastly understate the case. To anyone with any sense of moral awareness at all, this is among the most despicable of crimes. Filmmakers damaged or ruined the lives of children for their own profit. That's bottom line.

Now let's go back to Jodie Foster and Brooke Shields in their most sorrowful roles. While neither one (hopefully!) approached "Hounddog" in sheer depravity, on or off screen, both were giant steps on the road to that film... and to the final bridging of the gap between legitimate films and kiddie porn in the American cinema.

The incessant claims of the production staff (and their supporters) of "no nudity", "no flesh on flesh", etc., conflicts with the accounts of the set technicians. When the glib words and past deeds of those depraved filmmakers are considered, it becomes apparent that nothing they say can be taken at face value. Aside from their well-demonstrated immorality toward children, there remains the fact that they have absolutely no legal or financial motive to be forthright.

To quote Dakota Fanning is both useless and disgustingly exploitative in itself. What does a 12 year old child know? She does what she's told and says what she's told to say. If she could be corrupted and manipulated into doing something like "Hounddog", something that runs utterly counter to everything she had ever stood for (or that any normal child COULD stand for), then what weight can her words carry?

By the way: H-Day is coming.

Me

OK, let me quote someone of authority who knows what happened:

http://www.bluelineradio.com/show127-2.mp3

Connie Jordan Asst. District Attorney Fifth District North Carolina: "We have absolutely no evidence that a crime has occurred, no evidence that a crime has occurred, I don't know how anyone expects us to go forward, I certainly understand that people were upset over the fact that this movie was filmed, ...., that's more of an issue of morality, it's not an issue of whether or not a crime was committed, we have absolutely no no evidence that any of that occurred, and from everything everyone said on the set it didn't, I know you said that you had people who were very upset and who had things to add but you would not tell me who those people were, .... you were not willing to come forward to tell me who those people were, without that I'm not sure how we are suppose to go forward, ...., we have determined that no crime has been committed in the fifth district, absolutely it hasn't, Rex Gore has determined, ..., where he has issued a statement and I agree with his determination that this is not child pornography under our sexual exploitation statues, ......., and I completely disagree with you, I completely disagree, we spoke with local people who live and work here and have children here who were on that set at the time when this was filmed, ..., people who had Wilmington phone numbers, ...., if I had any indication from anyone that I spoke with that a crime had been committed we would have gone on further, there was nothing else to look at in my opinion, ...., we had to have touching, everything everyone said, ..... absolutely not, nothing happened, ....., I spoke with these people at all different times, they were not saying the same thing, none of that"

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

"By the way: H-Day is coming."

What is H-Day?

Steven Mark Pilling

Dear "Me":

Once again (!!); the law is only as good as the willingness of legal authority to uphold it. Have you forgotten that these people waited nearly five months to launch their sham "investigation"? Naturally, no one stepped forward. They either had no personal incentive to or could see that the risks to their personal well-being would not be served by prosecutors who obviously had no incentive themselves for pursuing the case. Under those circumstances and had I been a technician on that set with a family to support, I'd have done just what they did... and in strict anonymity. We've been all over this again and again.

And H-Day is coming soon!

Tre Benson

"we had to have touching," Connie Jordan

You do not have to have touching in a criminal sexual exploitation of a minor. Had she had known that........

WOW WEE.
ahaha.. Grate a pissen contest
ya what he siad ahaha sorry guys.
i found this. Dakots was at a dinner/
she was aprouched by a very well none actor
he wanted her to do a movies with him he told her when she becomes of age?? WTF ahaha. Dakota reply was lets not get gross hummm. so what dose this mean..
One if you want to get ahead in this business you have to except everything that gos with it. and what the hell is that
the movies bisness tells you to be thin beautiful. to take it off when ask to
i found more links to this childstar website. and i told you about brooks.
more and more of these child actor are being led to the same road they put brooks down. ok she has a good career very sesicessfull but what she had to do to get to that point hey she was not a happy camper hey id love to be an actor but if i had to let some perv tuch me or get naked for a scen i would have to pass.
they tuch group hump strip the very sole right out of you then say good job but nixt time bed way over ahaha. thats just gross.
and that kind of behavour would get ya in turble in the real world and you dont get payed for it and you cant say when its over i dont think about it anymore. and agin Steve well siad .. but Me. has a good point too. and i wish try would up date his online radio porgam ahaha.

Try..
ahaha i sorry it was you on last post ok
well said .. there now up date your online radio shows ahaha i liv in the sticks if we had a radio show like yours around here id lov it

wow wee
tipo sorry tre

hey..
here ya go the girl that stard in the movie harry porter just to let you know she is only 17 and there are nud photos of her and some of them are fake but there are real ones and the photographer that took the photos of her is a prv ahaha. agin this is child exploitation they have upskit shots of her setting down and turth none she dident know that took these photos its all on this website you posted here Me. hey it just makes me sick to see what there doing to the kids and getting away with it lots of the kids are nud simmi nud standing in tub some of them are nud some of them have both boy and girl in the tub o my in one movie there was a little girl tuched a mans piness thid kind of stuff dont get you mad Me, just asking??

Steven Mark Pilling

I would hope Emma Watson has a little more couth than her nude-on-stage co-star! I noticed that the new "Harry Potter" movie is rated PG13 (Parental guidance STRONGLY suggested)! After my recent experience with Disney's "Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End", I have renewed understanding that those words mean exactly that.

Amoral photogs getting "upskirt" shots of actresses is nothing new, I'm sorry to say. I'm aware of a porn site called "Celebrity Skin" that specializes in that... with numerous links to other sites that are just as bad or worse. It's a big business, as is all porn; especially that which is celebrity-based. That they're going after minors is just another sign of the Hounddog Era in full swing.

Remember: In Britain, 16 is the age of legal consent. That's how David Radcliffe got away with doing "Equus". And Britain is considered conservative by European standards!

By the way, Aubrey; where did you get that story about Dakota being approached to do an "adult" film in the future? I'd hardly be surprised to find it to be true, since I've been predicting it for some time now. After all, she hasn't got many other career options left. Family films are certainly out!

And Tre: Thanks for making that point. You've made it a number of times, but somehow the pro-exploitation posters never seem to pick up on it! In fact, all the salient points, however often repeated, seem to be lost on them. I wonder why?!

H-Day is only a week away! Best to all.

The comments to this entry are closed.