My Photo

October 2010

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

Photo Albums

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

January 29, 2007


is this true

Christoph Sanders: At age 18, he portrayed Dakota's molestor in the most notorious scene of this despicable movie. Despite numerous denials from the film's principals (only to be expected!) others have stated that the making of the scene did involve full body contact over a period of at least a dozen takes. He also was a key actor in the infamous scene where "Daddy" wanders into a pool hall in a nude state and is eventually led out by Dakota. Now 19, he has since finished his freshman year at Blue Ridge Junior College in North Carolina.

is this ture..

Christoph Sanders: At age 18, he portrayed Dakota's molestor in the most notorious scene of this despicable movie. Despite numerous denials from the film's principals (only to be expected!) others have stated that the making of the scene did involve full body contact over a period of at least a dozen takes.

dakota fanning sead she dident see anyone nud??
no one tuched her??
i dont know but this is sick as hell..
where you get this info from


Yes it was in the script. Daddy after being struck by lightening starts running around town nude (not really, he only looks like he is nude being filmed from the waist up) where he comes in contact with the milk man's son. Lewellen has to retrieve him and take him back home. No he wasn't really nude, he was filmed above the waist with just his shirt off. You don't see full frontal nudity.

"others have stated that the making of the scene did involve full body contact over a period of at least a dozen takes"

WHO? Name one person who said this!

He was filmed unzipping his pants with Dakota not present, then she was filmed alone showing only her arm and leg with facial expressions in a dark shed only being illuminated with flashes of lightening.

The rest is pretty close to being true. Can't dispute the principals in this situation or their involvement. But nothing they did was in any way illegal.

491 Paco

"others have stated that the making of the scene did involve full body contact over a period of at least a dozen takes"

WHO? Name one person who said this!

I can name at least 15 people. But I know better.


Y would you post this

"[others have stated that the making of the scene did involve full body contact over a period of at least a dozen takes]"

WHO? Name one person who said this!

Paco.. posted..
[I can name at least 15 people. But I know better]

do you realy know who?. as in any of the ones who worked on the set in the filming of hounddog?? or just repeting what some one posted??

say whats on your mine .. Paco..

Steven Mark Pilling

I have to back up "Me" in one aspect, which I failed to make clear. I have little doubt that David Morse was not actually nude when that scene in the pool hall was shot and that it was shot waist-up as "Me" says.

The point, however, is this. A child had to be involved in a scene where it was clearly understood that this man was her incestuous and degenerate father and that he was supposed to be stark naked as he wandered through the town looking for...HER. Not only the nudity, even if implied, but the very nature of the scene renders it grossly inappropriate for any child to be involved with. This is simply a matter of common decency.

It also raises the matter of Christoph Sanders and his role. Chronologically, this scene occured AFTER the infamous act of molestation. Yet, there in the pool hall stands "Wooden's Boy"- arrogant and abusive as ever. He has never been accused or charged with the most terrible of all crimes. Nor has the issue ever been raised. As one reviewer put it, the "rape" scene was there only for the shock value. It was also there for the pruriency factor.

There were no "socially conscious" messages in this film. There was no "raising awareness of the problem" involved... or any of the other standard excuses for cinematic lewdness. This was, as I've repeatedly said, a movie soley concerned with child sex and degeneracy. This scene alone is enough to make the point.

And that it was done with the active participation OF children makes it likewise criminal... by any traditional sense of the term.

By the way; it's well known to all here that the story on the events that transpired on that set during the filming of the "rape" scene comes mainly from Tre Benson's contacts. I trust Tre's integrity enough to accept the story at his behest... something I very rarely do from any source. Whether anyone else here does or not is strictly up to that individual.


My point, however, is this. In the movie War of the Worlds a child had to be involved in a scene where it was clearly understood that her father had to kill a man in cold blood simply because he would not stop talking. Not only the violence, even if implied, but the very nature of the scene renders it grossly inappropriate for any child to be involved with. This is simply a matter of common decency. So why was that movie considered ok along with several others but she was still the voice of a generation or what ever bs you keep saying. If your going to condemn one movie for violating common decency them condemn all of them and lets see how far that goes.

I have said this many times before, if Tre had concrete evidence then why didn't he turn it over to the DA including the names of the people that gave him the information so they could do a more indepth investigation? You can't blame the DA for not doing anything when they only got half the story and no one willing to back it up.

Tre Benson

You asked why I didn't deliver the goods to the DA. Prior to learning of the frontally lit, flesh to flesh contact in the rape scene I received a copy of the script. This would have had to been in early June, maybe even late May. Many friends of mine refused to work on the movie based on the disturbing content in script. None of these people support Bush, watch FOXNEWS or even spend time in a church. They are liberal artisans with choices in life.

After I received the script I began to hear about how crew was being treated and how Dakota spent as much time in her underwear as she did in clothes.

Since I know a bit about the law my ears pricked up and I began to become suspicious. Could someone be stupid enough to do what I think they were doing? My brother Marc contacted the DA's office. It was suggested later that I contact ADA Connie Jordan with the complaint. This is still in June, because I was working out of town in July. I sent a simple email briefly outlining the concerns to Ms. Jordan.

On July 20th I began to read in the national press some of the things I had been hearing for the past month or two. I fired off another email since I never heard back from Ms. Jordan and on July 24th she sent me a reply stating that the matter is already under investigation.

Then January or whenever Connie Jordan announced that the edited version of the film was safe for human consumption. Gave it two thumbs up.

No one asked me for anything until the cow left the building and all the kings men couldn't, wouldn't put this crap back on the front-page again for a million dollars, including me. I had already taken all the punishment I was going to take over this shitty little production staring some circus freak about some thinly veiled journey through a cracked up bitch's neurotic autobiography. Fuck those lying sacks of shit! Every fucking one of them!

That was theraputic! WOW...

Sorry back to the events.

As far as I was told and what I believed to be true, an investigation was going on. They knew what I knew. If they wanted anything from me they knew how to find me. But they never called.

So I had no idea that they weren't already talking with the AD and his wife or the camera operator and gotten the story from the eyewitnesses themselves. I swear to God had I have been asked early on I would have sent them to my friends.

When it was all over and done with I spoke with Connie Jordan and she told me what she saw etc. I asked if she saw the VTR playback... and she said "the what???"

Remember the press release? "viewed the uncut footage" They saw what they were given. They talked to those who were presented to them. They never asked me dick until I called them out on the coverup. No one looked into anything prior to the January (or whenever) press release, "TWO THUMBS UP!"

Ben David is an awesome prosecutor. Connie Jordan is a remarkable woman with a passion for child victims. I respect both of them. But like she said to me, "I put Dakota Fanning on the stand as a hostile witness and who is going to win?"

I got played all the way around. If I had pictures, hard evidence that the sexual expolitation of a child took place on the set of the movie Hounddog I'd keep it to myself at this point and would be justfied in doing so. Nothing happened. Case closed.

So why didn't I give them names or any of the evidence that I had? I was never asked.

Steven Mark Pilling

Dear "Me":

Once again, all you can do to justify your stance is envoke other abuses as some sort of dismissal. They're not.

I've never seen "War of the Worlds"... and for two reasons: 1) I get no thrill at all at seeing fantasy depictions of mass destruction and the wanton slaughter of men, women and children and 2) I frankly don't care to see Dakota Fanning in other films, knowing now what was waiting in store for her in real life. As I've said, it's sometimes possible to shield child actors from the effects of violence (though it's hard to see how something as graphic as WOTW could be one, as you've related), but it's next to impossible to do this about sexual deviancy in a movie dedicated to nothing but and with children central to it all.

And (once again!!) this is not all about "Hounddog" or one poor, misguided little child actress. This is about the ongoing trend in perversity with children in films. This is about the exploitation of children in many ways and throughout the breadth of the popular culture. This is not only about those little actors and models who are exposed to unsavory situations and concepts at far too young an age, it's likewise about the children everywhere who see these depictions and are invariably influenced by them when they're the most vulnerable to such things.

It's also about how the culture has redefined the very meaning of being a child and what a child actually is. It's about lowering the bar on what has traditionally been understood as common decency toward the innocents... and for profit.

What makes "Hounddog" and it's young leading actress so prominent in this debate is that it has vividly exemplified this long term (but quiet and incremental) trend and where it has led. And where it has led is across the barrier to child pornography in American feature films. It may not have been the first. It's even possible (barely) that it wasn't the worst. But is was the most recent and it further illustated how far the trend has come by using the most beloved (once) child actress in the country as it's tool.

"Hounddog" is damned important... and for the reasons I've stated here, among others. That's why I'm not letting up and will not be diverted nor distracted by fringe issues or personal allegations. The issue is starkly evident and the consequences likewise. If children have been so consistently degraded as they increasingly have over the past three decades and if a film like "Hounddog" can push into the ultimate forbidden territory and it's makers arrogantly expect approbation for it, then no child is safe. If "Hounddog" is released without legal accountability, their future becomes grim indeed.

Steven Mark Pilling

Dear Tre:

Thanks for that post! It cleared up a few questions I'd had as to the complete timeline on the events in Wilmington. Very informative.

By the way, that quote of Connie Jordan's mirrored my evaluation of the many reasons why legal authorities, especially in film-oriented communities, are so reluctant to pursue such cases. As I've said, in closing my previous observations on this point, the final concern would be this: What happens, after all the other handicaps a local D.A. would face (bad press, "dream team" lawyers, no Hollywood money for the re-election campaign, political pressure, etc.) when he has to cross-examine a cute little girl who has not only been VERY well coached, but is also an A-list actress with a renown ability to cry on cue? I might also add; a child who has been led to believe that not only her career, but perhaps the liberty of her "second mother" agent and her real mother besides, might be riding on her performance?

After such a debacle, that District Attorney would probably be lucky to get a job as a public defender in a Night Court!

However, David and Gore owed it to their constituents, their country and every child in it to try. They didn't. Thus, I have consigned them to the "Rogue's Gallery"! It was a tough choice for them, I admit, but instead of asking for support and making the attempt, they played it slick and deceptive with the people of their district and their own subordinates besides. That was unforgiveable.

so sad ..

Steven Mark Pilling

Ahhh... what, in particular, is so sad?


"As I've said, it's sometimes possible to shield child actors from the effects of violence"

Explain? I see no difference. If a child could be exposed to watching a man be killed by her father with his bare hands and not be effected then there's no reason why a child couldn't act out a rape scene and not be effected. In both cases they fully understand it's acting.

Funny how you claim Dakota was America's Daughter and beloved child or what ever bs you keep saying when she did movies like WOTW, Man On Fire, Trapped, Hide and Seek, Uptown Girls, and Cat in the Hat. Each one of these movies had violence, murder, or sexual elements. None of these movies are kid friendly. All of them are morbid in one way or another. This was way before she did this movie so I don't see where anything changed. I agree with Tre, she was a circus freak that could perform on cue no matter what the subject matter and should never be put on a pedastal or made out to be a role model as you claim.

Just how many movies with Dakota have you seen? This was nothing new for her or her sister. They both made a name for themselves doing these types of movies.

"And (once again!!) this is not all about "Hounddog" or one poor, misguided little child actress."

Then why is Dakota the only one you ever talk about? I never see you making any comments about Cody and his new career as a Broadway actor. Until recently you barely made any mention of the people responsible for making the movie. It has all been about Dakota, Dakota, Dokota.

Here are some more names to add to your list. Make sure they get mentioned everytime you talk about sending people to jail:

Camera and Electrical Department
Patrick Borowiak .... assistant camera
Joe D'Alessandro .... camera operator
Jay Hardie .... assistant camera
Kevin Huver .... film loader
Roy Knauf .... camera loader
Peter B. Kowalski .... camera operator
Fred Norris .... still photographer
Cristiano Palermi .... electrician
Cristiano Palermi .... lighting technician
Jeff Sterner .... electrician
Greg Taylor .... electrician
Stephen Thompson .... gaffer
Jeff Wallace .... electrician
Sean Yaple .... second assistant camera
Simon Carey .... electrician (uncredited)

Costume and Wardrobe Department
Robin Dean .... set costumer
Joyce Marling .... set costumer

Production Management
Samara Levenstein .... post-production supervisor
Carole J. Sanders .... unit production manager: second unit
Kelly R. Tenney .... production manager

Andy Bader .... additional locations production assistant
Lauren Bailey .... additional production assistant
Budd Carr .... executive music producer
Jan Cerwonka .... studio teacher
Elizabeth A. Dennis .... assistant production office coordinator
Kristin Dombroski .... locations assistant
Nora Felder .... executive music producer
Dana Hawley .... additional production assistant
JoAnn Fregalette Jansen .... choreographer
Brandon Leonard .... locations assistant
Linda Lichter .... legal counsel
Gregory McNamara .... assistant location manager
Cari Moskow .... stand-in
Andrea Redder .... production assistant
Valerie N. Robinson .... production assistant
Stefan Sonnenfeld .... executive producer: Company 3
Kara B. Still .... script supervisor
Pamela Williamson .... production accountant

Could someone explain how you indict 120 people at one time? They were all responsible.

Steven Mark Pilling

Dear "Me":

Naturally, I was not referring to graphic, on-set violence directly involving a child. I said "sometimes"... as in some "rough-and-tumble" scenes that are patently choreographed. Scenes of blood spurting and people dying en masse is clearly inappropriate and harmful. I never meant otherwise... and you know it.

Your point that Dakota has been in a number of films that clearly WERE inappropriate, however, is well taken. Since I first found out about her and, especially, later in the course of my researches into the "Hounddog" question, that's become increasingly evident. Like I've said, Dakota wasn't brainwashed virtually overnight into going from "Charlotte's Web" to "Hounddog". The corruption process advanced in degrees.

Note: In fact, I'll add another one to the list. Last night, I watched her in CSI ("Blood Drops") in which, at the age of 6 or 7, she played the survivor of a mass family murder, a abused child and, as it turned out, the product of incest. That was seven years ago and at the beginning of her career!

Once again, though, this excuses nothing. It only reflects the ugly face of Hollywood, it's corruptive usage of child actors and how it's slowly worsened over time. Yes, Dakota's feet WERE set on the path of her ruination early on. It's to all our shame that this trend wasn't pointed out much sooner and that it took something like "Hounddog" to finally make it evident.

By the way, I'm on record as opposing any participation whatsoever of a minor in R-rated movies and look with great skepticism on many PG13s besides.

And why do I mention Dakota so much? For one thing, I just don't have the time to do extensive research on the comings and goings of all the film's principals. In any case (and like it or not), she's become the poster child for the sexual exploitation of minors in films... just as "Hounddog" has come to represent the pornographic depravity which modern filmation has come to. That worse abuses than this have occured overseas, in overt and illegal pornography and (perhaps) in other feature films is, once again, no excuse.

As for that long list of participants in the making of "Hounddog"... I have it, too. I wrote it down from IMDB early in the process. The ones I mentioned on August 7th, however, were the major ones. I am aware that any number of the others might have held no moral qualms about what they were doing as well. I am also aware that other children besides Dakota Fanning were victimized in that film and continue to be exploited by uncaring (and worse) filmmakers as I write this.

However, I'm just one man alone, here. I've identified "Hounddog" as being key to the question of the moral use of children in the popular culture. I've likewise identified it's primary makers as being representative of the immoral (and now virtually institutionalized) attitudes toward children that have led us to this point. And I've seen the evil effects of this manifested in the story of a once well-loved child actress whose potential for good was so evident.

So it is here that I take my stand... in the hope that this will (as they say in Hollywood) "raise awareness" of a real and vital issue. And here's the stance once again... and as I stated it a year ago: There can be no moral basis for the sexual exploitation of a child.


"Scenes of blood spurting and people dying en masse is clearly inappropriate and harmful."

Then why do you talk about the movie War Of The Worlds as being a benchmark movie in her career. You have said many times she went from movies like WOTW and Web to her downfall in Hounddog. Well, war had exactly what you just said shouldn't be in a movie. People dying in masses including a scene where she goes into the woods to take a piss and looks over to a river and hundreds of dead bodies float by, not to mention the thousands of other people that died in that movie, and her watching as her dad kills a man with his bare hands. It was a bloodfest from start to finish. Add in the profanity and you have a typical DF movie. Not exactly the kind of movie you should be promoting. In fact almost all of her movies were adult in nature except "web". Not exactly a role model or America's most beloved child if you ask me.

Ask the Sprouse brothers how much their sex movie hurt their career? Not one but two rape scenes, by adult men, drugs, crossdressing, homosexual themes, attacks against religion, drugs, profanity, nudity, more drugs, sex scenes, kids doing drugs, kids talking about sex, kids using profanity, and kids doing drugs. The movie is currently available at every movie store in the country. It was way worse than anything in Hounddog. They also have a very popular show on Disney and movies in production. Nope, didn't hurt them one bit, in fact it made them a household name.

Damit guys...
get to the point here


The point? OK.....

Some unknown wannabe director makes friends with Robin Wright Penn, they make a small low budget indie film together which wins some awards sparking the interest in a few investors. Robin makes a call to Dakota's parents and offers her a part in this movie so she can expand her acting ability insuring it will get the money needed to get the production rolling.

They go cheap and bring the movie to Wilmington where they can get non-union workers and cheap equipment rentals. Just before filming starts locals start discussing the project and talk about the content. Most walk away but some are hard up for work and don't give a crap so they sign up. The ones that walked called Tre and tell him about the movie and content. He makes a few calls to local law enforcement because he can't believe they would be so stupid.

The director gets to town just as the money is cut off because the investors realize this movie will bomb because of the content. Sure that it will get an R or NR rating it will alienate Dakota's fan base which is the source for the money they plan to make. Now they are stuck, all the actors are flying into town, they got no money, so they get locals to put up some money to get the film rolling. They also hear that Tre will start talking about this on his radio show. Hey, free publicity! So they go with it, creating a fake controversy by carefully leaking information about the movie. They know the film is a dud but people will line up if they can give them a reason.

Filming starts and slowing moves along all the while the director is pumping up the investors with guarentees that it will be a good movie. They decide to focus on the only thing that is sure to draw in an audience, the sexual elements. Dakota's mom isn't stupid enough to let some 18 year old climb all over her daughter but knows if people think it happened they will want to see it. So they film the scene without the boy but tell everyone his was there anyway not thinking that could be illegal. They go a little too far with the make out scene, not to the point that it's child porn but a little to far which causes a few crew members to get pissed. The investors start looking at the dailes and realize this southern fried drama with another Elvis subplot is a joke so at the last minute they try to clean up some of the scenes using a crane and better camera equipment but it's still a joke. The make out scene appears to have been filmed by a 12 year old. Hell it would have been better if they just let Dakota run the show because she has more experience.

Now they are totally screwed, the movie looks like a cheap film student flick and the storyline makes no sense. To make matters worse the free publicity backfires when Tre exposes that they may have actually violated the law by using minors in such a way. The rumors fly and everyone starts pointing the finger not wanting to take responsibilty. One of the investors throws a fit because he knows he got taken and will loose a lot of money so he does want any investor would do, seek more publicity, try to milk the controversy for what ever it's worth, maybe people will want to see the movie just to see what all the hype was about.

The investor calls Lloyd Groves and gives him all the steamy details. Sure it will spark people's interest. Tre takes it as proof they did something wrong and goes on the offensive. They call the local media and expose this thing not knowing some of the stuff was over exagerated. Now the film makers get scared because the law is getting involved so they try to cover their ass by making a statement that she wasn't really nude and the scene was shot with mostly facial expressions but not wanting to let the cat out of the bag just yet that she was filmed alone because they hope to milk that later.

Now the national media is taking note of this little film which is great because they need more investors to finish up post production. They know that with all the controversy it's guaranteed a spot in some festivals hopefully Sundance so they go with it not wanting to fully explain exactly what happened letting the readers use their own imagination hoping to spark even more interest. They know they didn't break any laws because of the way it was filmed in segments without actual physical contact. The creation of the storyline will be achieved later in the edit.

Now that the media is involved they run wild with stories of past child stars, old forgotten movies in the past, start doing comparisons knowing this will get people's attention and run up the ratings. They employ child stars to tell the tragedy of their lost youth which makes for good television. This all sparks the interest of the vast middle age America baby boomer generation who has never heard of an indie film and don't have the slightest idea how movies are created and that the storyline is achieved in the editing process. Now middle American church going family oriented people jump on the bandwagon in disgust. Can't believe movies like this are ever made and have no idea of what is already out there.

To compound this ex child stars jump on the badwagon. Just more washed-up and forgotten actors trying to get publicity for themselves, using whatever means they can to get back on TV and just PRAYING that phone will ring just one more time. They milk it for what ever it's worth until people are sick of hearing all their whining and turn the channel.

Slowly they let it simmer because the controversy is spreading across the internet like wild fire. Everyone wants to see the movie to find out if all the rumors are true. It gets picked up for Sundance just as expected. Now it's do or die time so the director tries to clean up this crappy film so that it will at least get some attention as an art film if nothing else. It's redemption time so they go on the offensive and let out all the details, contact the local DA's office and provide them with a copy, get some select crew members to cool down the fire. See we told you so, it's not that bad, come to Sundance and watch the movie, please! It's a last ditch attempt to spark some interest and hoepfully draw attention away from Dakota because people like Steve are all over her case. Clearly she could care less, she knows this little film means nothing, the kid is already rich so nothing can really hurt her in the long run. Now she is in the same class as Brook Shileds and Jody Foster, mission accomplished.

One last attempt by the morally superior, Bill and Ted's Bugus Crusade takes over the media attention. They milk this thing for everything it's worth hoping to get their names in every newspaper and television network in America.

The film hits Sundance and the regular movie fans accustomed to crappy indie films see it for what it is. Another attempt to use big name stars to draw audiences to low budget movies using the only thing they know will make money because they all realize sex and violence sells. The newly empowered middle America crowd picks apart every aspect of the film trying to analize the meaning behind everything not understanding movies don't have to have a meaning. It's meant to be an escape from reality for an hour or two, nothing else.

Now everyone knows it's a dud. They haven't quite figured out just yet they were all played just like they are played every single day by the media. It's a great deversion for a while to takes people's minds off what is really happening in the world. Wars, corruption, crime, drugs, murder, mass killing, and all the other bad stuff was put on the back burner while we all focused on something that means nothing, a stupid little movie.

Everyone that got some attention like Paul, Bill, and Ted climb back under their rocks just waitng for the next big controversy knowing their numbers are on speed dial at all the major news outlets. The film makers know they lost the momentium by not feeding the controversy more and they know the movie is a dud so they climb back under their rocks hoping that maybe some day they will get another chance to work again. They will let it simmer down then try to recoup their loses by getting this out on dvd and hope people still remember all the rumors and want to see it just to find out.

Steve on the other hand just can't let go. This was his chance to make a difference, he was part of the Hollywood experience, almost in the spotlight, almost connected. So close that now he can't give up the excitement and go back to his boring life.

Me? Well me watched this unfold from start to finish, manipulated it in every way possible, changed the focus, pointed the finger in every which direction, tried to keep it in the spolight and at the same time tried to squash the controversy, kept everyone dazed and confused, and did everything possible to screw up everyone elses aganda. Me was just a troll using every little dirty trick in the book just so he could be a part of something. I know nothing is going to change. I know nothing will ever come of this. I know it was just another movie that will someday make it onto the rental shelves then be cast away in the reduced $5 bin and quickly forgotten. I'll wait until the next big controversy comes along and try to put in my influence again. I have to admit it was addictive.

lol Y dont you slap every one in the faces
Y is every one trying to gain somthing from
Dakota fanning is a spoiled brat
like you said she dont care what any one thinks but your picken on the roung guys
WHO YOU say TRE and steve
to edited a sceen you have to film it frist
no blue screen himmm
was the law broken here????

Steven Mark Pilling

Dear "Me":

Who said that "War of the Worlds" was a "benchmark"? I've rarely even mentioned that film. And, I believe, I've already made clear my objections to children being in such films. And yes, I'm aware that the Sprouse twins had a small part in "The Heart Is Deceitful Above All Things"- a film that may well equal "Hounddog" in it's depravity toward children.

Whether these films have helped or hurt their careers is utterly beside the point. What being in such movies has done to their hearts and souls, what it will do to their future personalities as adults and what it will likewise do to other kids through the images and concepts those films project... this is the issue!

I mentioned that Dakota Fanning was once beloved by so many other kids and to a phenominal degree. You however, being Hollywood inclined, fail to understand the true reason why. It wasn't predominately a matter of her acting, but of her own self that she projected. Kids didn't love her characters (in the movies they were allowed to see!). They loved her personally. They loved what they believed to be the real Dakota shining out from her characters- as well as in her personal appearances. And they took inspiration from her success story. So did many adults looking (desperately!) for a good role model for their own kids. I did, too.

That's why I was once her biggest defender online. In a way, I still am; despite your attempts to color me as her enemy. Then, at the same time, you attack her yourself with your talk of "typical DF" movies. You make it sound as though a child was the evil mastermind of an ultra-violent movie! A pint-sized Sam Peckinpah!

It's not the fault of the Fanning sisters, "Me". They are little girls under the control of profiteering adults. They, as with other exploited child actors, are not the perpetrators. They're the victims.

Dakota has been given jobs to do, some of which involved unsavory situations for children, and she did them faithfully... as any good kid would. She had no real way of evaluating the total impact or detailed moral questions of what she had done. Like all children, she's reliant on the adults around her to provide that. The roles she's been given and the movies she's been in do not necessarily reflect on her character. It does, though, on those adults.

You say "It's just the way things are" the way a Mafia capo would say "it's only business" while rubbing out a few competitors. How things have become is due to the attention (or, I'm afraid, inattention) of the citizenry at large. In that, I've been as guilty as anyone. That's why I take this issue to heart as I do.

P.S. Deborah Kampmeier tried to blame it all on Dakota, too, after the Sundance debacle. Now you. You've come the full circle in that... but I haven't.

P.P.S. As far as that latest post of yours was concerned: When you strip it of the standard talking points, personal attacks and Hollywood-style flim-flam, what you've essentially done is to back up everything that Tre, me and others have been saying since July 2006! Thanks!! Now, I guess, you've attempted to set the stage for your graceful withdrawal from the fray.


Man on Fire (Rated R for language and strong violence), Hide and Seek (Rated R for frightening sequences and violence), Trapped (Rated R for violence, language and sexual content), War of the Worlds (Rated PG-13 for frightening sequences of sci-fi violence and disturbing images), I Am Sam (Rated PG-13 for language), Uptown Girls (Rated PG-13 for sexual content and language), with smaller roles in Nine Lives (Rated R for language, brief sexual content and some disturbing images) and Sweet Home Alabama (Rated PG-13 for some language/sexual references).

These are typical DF movies. Most of these movies can't even be viewed by most of her young fans but they do know her from Web and Cat in the Hat even tho I would never let a kid watch that one. Nothing has changed about her, she still does kid friendly shows and charity events. You have said many times she went from WOTW and Web to her downfall in Hounddog making it some sort of benchmark. It was nothing of the sort, a hour and half long blood fest with a screaming little girl which is what made her famous.

I never heard Kampmeier say anything bad about Dakota. She has always praised her for being a great actress. There have been almost a half dozen publicity photo shoots since January.

I still haven't seen you say a word about the CBS show Kid Nation. It's under fire for over working kids, violating several laws in regard to licensing, violating child labor laws, endangering kids, and many suffered injuries. So far the parents have remained silent but I guess $25K will do that. OK child protection advocate what are you doing about this?

I didn't back up all your rumors. Most have turned out not to be true and I pointed this out numerous times and tried to prove you wrong succesfully many times. Bottom line was nothing they did was illegal. What is in the movie is not pornographic or illegal. There is no evidence other than hearsay about how the scenes were filmed and most of that was over exagerated.

Withdrawal? OK, MPG annouced the final edit is complete and a distribution deal is imminent and the movie will be released in the winter. They are starting production of Split after moving their offices to New York. Dakota is on her way to Hong Kong, Cody is working on a Broadway play, David has two movies, Christoph has a tv pilot, Jill has two movies, Robin has three movies, and Deborah has another movie. It's almost time to move on don't you think?

Steven Mark Pilling

Dear "Me":

Ahhh! Smoked you out with that, didn't I?

I'm well aware that Dakota has been in inappropriate films for children, as I've repeatedly mentioned. And, while her scenes rarely included the events that gave those films their ratings, to have children involved in any capacity and, of necessity, in the inherent concepts, is wrong.

Again, the blame for this cannot be laid at her tiny feet. She's an exploited child. As I've learned more about her over the course of my studies, the more I discovered how extensive that overall exploitation has been. Indeed, it's almost like the history of child exploitation in films condensed to one, lone child. The level of it slowly built up over time and, with it, so did her desensitization... along with that of her supporters. Again; she was groomed for something like "Hounddog"- perhaps from the very beginning.

What her zealously amoral handlers didn't realize, though, is that there comes a breaking point in such things. As I've said, the basis for Dakota's support was her personal dearness, not so much her screen personas or movie scenarios. "Hounddog" rudely shattered that image.

Whether or not it was any longer a valid one... that I can't say. Right now I still prefer to believe that, despite all the evil influences that have surrounded her and worked on her, she still remains a good kid at heart. I'm prepared to be proven wrong on that, though.

Now; as to Deborah Kampmeier. This is the quote she made to an interviewer on the last day of the Sundance Film Festival. I apologize for having failed to list the source, but it was from normal news channels.

"Dakota suggested it. I was going to suggest the rape scene subtly by having the white balloon she was carrying when she was violated go floating off into the sky (!), but Dakota wanted the present scene instead. In fact, she wanted to appear totally naked in the scene and she wanted the boy who rapes her to discover that she wasn't a virgin, but I said no (!!)."

What she did here was to try to push the onus of her own exposed depravity- her's predominately as the director and writer- onto the small shoulders of the very child she had not only desecrated in that film, but had just finished humiliating in front of the entire world at the festival. This was Dear Debbie's Parthian shot at the child she had hoped would take her to the big time... after she had turned her into the youngest ever screen tramp in Hollywood history! After everything else, should this surprise anyone? When you've turned to child porn for a living, there's not much else to refrain from.

By the way, I HAVE commented on the "Kid Nation" issue elsewhere. Not extensively yet, but I'm keeping tabs on it as the details come forward and the story grows. You'll notice that Paul Petersen has done likewise. As I said in one comment, I see here many of the same scenarios (and excuses) that I've seen in the course of the "Hounddog" case. Vague laws, unenforced laws, inaction of legal authority and a reluctance to challenge the almighty Industry, parental greed or ignorance and the amoral ambitions of filmmakers... plus their expected outcry of "the kids were protected", "no laws broken", ad nauseum.

At least they weren't led to strip for the cameras, enact sex and murder and drape each other with living snakes! As a "benchmark" for depravity with children in the culture, "Hounddog" is still the biggest mutt in the kennel.

So I'm not "moving on", "Me". I may expand the frame of my commentary, but I'm not going lose focus. If the "friends" and "sources" you claim are expecting otherwise, they can forget it. Their crimes are such magnitude that I WON'T forget. Let that be clear right now.

Steven Mark Pilling

Dear "Me": I just re-read your August 17th posting after my last post today... for the sheer amusement. Honestly, I never thought of you as a "Troll"! Whatever. One thing though- and you can take this one to the bank- the last thing on Earth I'd ever want to be is "part of the Hollywood experience". It holds no glamor for me. Just the opposite, in fact.

Steven Mark Pilling

Dear "Me":

I just took the time to re-re-read your August 17th posting! Again, it was informative in many ways, especially in certain details to which I could only speculate from my point of reference. Added to prior data I've amassed (and allowing, of course, for your OWN point of reference) it became enlightening indeed. I honestly thank you for posting it.

One other note. As I previously said, Hollywood's false glamour only engenders my contempt. I despise by my nature falseness, pseudo-sophistication and godless immorality wrapped in a duplicitous veneer of virtue.

In fact, I would here quote actor Hardy Krueger's character in the classic film "Flight of the Phoenix" when he tells Jimmy Stewart, "You behayff as iff stoopidity ver a virrrtue. Vy iss dot??" That could stand as a mild reprimand of the Hollywood elite's general character. If only it ended at that!

I will have to confess something, though. First of all, I don't consider myself a man burdened with an excessive ego. I've done my share of turning left rather than right in the course of my life. And, yes, before this issue erupted in my face, my personal life HAD become a bit humdrum compared with my previous years. My belated discovery of the internet and all it entailed, good and bad, certainly opened up a new world for me. It also presented me with awarenesses and challenges that I could never have predicted would come my way.

But have I come to enjoy the "crusade" I've undertaken? As far as the subject itself, no. My gut-churning reaction to what I'd discovered and continue to learn about the perverse use of children in the modern popular culture has not diminished in the least. What I've learned- along with my shame that I, like my fellow baby boomers, had helped allow this to happen through long-standing inattention- is what's kept me at it.

Have I, however, had an occasional "ego moment" along the way? I'd be either a saint or a formidable liar to say otherwise. I was heartened when, on occasion, people of prominence answered my comments directly on a blogsite or by email. I was gratified and even charmed by the messages of many others with whom I have come in contact and who's sentiments I will treasure. When I discovered that one of my early posts had been quoted in a news article... well, I couldn't help but indulge in a little personal satisfaction there! And, when I also belatedly discovered (I think it was you who enlightened me!) that I and others could Google-Search my name and that I might, perhaps, have been speaking to a far larger audience than I knew...

That, however, I found to be more humbling than self-enhancing. It also made me grateful that I had upheld solid standards of discourse, consistancy, honesty and as much accuracy was possible from the beginning! Although some have said that I've become a major figure in this issue, I still reject this. I'm just one man alone attempting to keep in focus what I firmly consider to be a vital social issue. There's no organization or major blog site with my name on it.

I will say this in closing. It's important for anyone in any public endeavor to keep his feet on the ground, his head out of the clouds and conduct periodic self-critiques as to purpose and motivation. Being a Christian helps here. As I've often said, non-Christians try to say that it's un-Christian to be judgemental. They say this either in ignorance or in an attempt to deceive. Christians should be judgemental (and active) when they perceive evil being done. It's just that we must first render judgement ON OURSELVES before applying it to others. And we must act, not for our own self-esteem or benefit, but for God's and according to His will that the innocent be protected.

Therefore, in forwarding this cause, it is essential that anyone who takes the initiative also makes periodic "reality checks" to keep his own motives correct. In fact, that's what I'm doing right now, I guess! That just struck me!!

Confession is good for the soul! God bless all.


Maybe now you understand my dislike for Bill and Ted. Bill Donohue is a media hound that just likes to see himself on tv. Most of his crusades are a complete joke. He takes up an issue that is sure to raise the ratings of any network that will give him airtime. The guy is about as fake as they come and it was clear from the start he didn't care about kids, he only cared about his own political strength. Ted Beahr is just another shark trying to fatten his wallet. Always pimping his website and over priced movie reviews and dvd sales.

I don't really have too much respect for Paul Petersen but I do respect his actions to safeguard actors, rich little spoiled brats that make up a very very very small percentage of the population. What has he done for other non actor kids? Very little! The guy likes to talk about his own experiences but rarely tells the truth. He was another spoiled Disney brat that was told what to do 24 hours a day, controlled by the corporation that was cut loose when he became an adult and then had to fend for himself just like the rest of society. Everyone becomes an adult at some point, can't really feel sorry for the guy because he couldn't deal with all the responsibility. He got millions of dollars then went out and spent it on fast cars and cheap women and when it was all gone he started crying and wanting the rest of us to feel sorry for him. Can't do it, get a real job if the biz doesn't have a place for you like Gary Coleman did before the tabloids tracked him down, he was doing just fine. MOST former child stars moved on and got real jobs, raised a family, and didn't look back. The end of an acting career is not the end of the world.

I said many times I would have respected your "crusade" had you just stuck with the facts instead of all these blog site rumors. Sometimes you have to step back and use some common sense. All of the crew members were listed on IMDB, their contact information is posted online, and many of them were posting on various sites. It wasn't hard to get in contact with them if you would have just tried. Early they were more than willing to give up information. Now it's hard because they all have moved on and no longer care.

I don't know everything that happened. I know no one was nude, no one was directly involved in any sexual contact, no one was forced to do anything they didn't feel comfortable with, and no kids were harmed. Maybe over worked a bit but that's common in movie productions. It was a cheap production that cut corners, they almost got caught a couple of times with some of the things they did. I know about the dogs and chickens, the cut scenes, the arguments, the crew members and vendors not getting paid. Like Tre said the circus just packed up and left town with a lot of pissed off people left holding the bag.

Was it all worth it? Like you some of my post got mentioned in news stories, the petition site got reported on CNN and in several news stories, mentioned in a story in the local paper, I got to talk to some of the key players, and learned a lot of investigative techniques. Yea it was worth it! Did anything change? Not a thing.....

Steven Mark Pilling

Dear "Me":

Bill Donohue, Ted Baehr and Paul Petersen continue to have my respect and appreciation for the stand they have taken... as well as for the personal attacks they have endured for doing so. When you openly take to task what may be the most powerful vested interest on Earth, trouble is only to be expected. I don't hold any troubles of their younger years against them, either. I've had my own! It is by such adversities (and all too often!) that men acquire wisdom, character and a sense of personal responsibility.

You're quite right insomuch that most child actors have gone on to decent and productive lives- a fact that I've constantly mentioned. The point in contention, however, is the present state of the Hollywood culture and how it's so terribly digressed. Most of those past actors, while exposed to disruptive and occasionally unsavory experiences in their youth, were rarely, if ever, subjected to the blatant exploitation and perversity that has since become commonplace.

We've seen how even minor difficulties with FCSs can engender later personal difficulties. What, then, is to be expected of those who grow up in a culture in which depravity dominates all aspects? And, most important of all, how does their resultant experience, on and off the scene, affect the children who idolize them?

Again: Depravity- unchecked- only leads to more and greater depravity. And this depravity is aimed squarely at children.

As I have often said, I have just not had the time to continuously monitor the sites and movements of every principal in the "Hounddog" affair. Full Moon Films' site disappeared early on. Robin Wright's still exists. Where her's mentioned the film, the words were only the standard Hollywood excuses and double talk. The same with that of The Motion Picture Group. I left them both detailed posts!

There was little reason to expect anything more substansive from anyone else involved. If there had been, I would have likely learned of it from some other online source... such as yourself! Besides, as I've pointed out, none of these people have the slightest motivation to be forthright.

And has the anti-child porn movement changed anything where "Hounddog" was concerned? Well, it did help to keep the issue from being silenced in those long months leading up to Sundance. It obviously did contribute to the events that brought about it's rejection there. There's that, at least. As to anything more... only time will tell.

But the salient point is that it HAD to be opposed and must continue to be. Whether or not the "Hounddog" affair directly impacts the public conscience, it's inherent message must. Our future as a free and decent nation may well depend on it. We're talking (once again) about the most basic duties of adults- protecting children from those who would prey on them; both physically and spiritually.

"Hounddog"- as has no other recent event- illustrates the overall threat to them from the popular culture.

O Man this sucks..
HOUNDDOG will play at the utah film fest on the 22 of jan hopes to pick up a destribeder
is this right??
GO indy colts ..

Steven Mark Pilling

To the last poster: Are you referring to the last Sundance Film Festival or the next one? While it's been long since announced by The Motion Picture Group that "Hounddog" was in the process of yet another edit, I've yet to hear anything further. Have you? And if so, where? Please advise.

from what i saw this comming jan

dee is filmming 4 movies at the same time
none done just now setting a date for hounddog just call hir agent in cal..

O No they dident..
dakota fanning filmming in Hong Kong
movie called push ?? WTF

OOPS on last post i ment you call hir agent
and the movie 'push' in hong kong starts filmming in 08 has nudy sex adult content violets wichcraft O come on WTF sick shit well hell just blam it on hollywood sick rich basterds..


Jan 22 Sundance was this year 2007. It screened for almost a week. It was also at another film festival a month later. Dakota has finished two projects this year and is currently working on "Push" in Hong Kong. A short directed by Kate Hudson (not Katie Holmes) just finished and an indie film "Winged Creatures" wrapped a couple of months ago and is set to release early next year. No explicit sex or violence in "Push". It should be a PG-13 type of movie, maybe an "R" if the language is bad but not because of sex scenes.

Plot Summary for
Push (2008)

The action packed sci-fi thriller involves a group of young American ex-pats with telekinetic and clairvoyant abilities, hiding from a clandestine U.S. government agency. They must utilize their different talents and band together for a final job enabling them to escape the agency forever.

O me..
push is an R movie and i found more on this movie there is to nudy with sex scenes in it and lots more

Steven Mark Pilling

Dear Anonymous:

I believe that "Me" is correct about the movie "Push". Or, at least, he's accurately quoting from the pre-production synopsis. While I've certainly learned to take THOSE with a grain of salt (another lesson from "Hounddog"!) I would tend to believe that this one, beyond the inherent hype, is more or less accurate.

I also doubt that Chris Evans would want to blow his off-and-running career with child porn. He's taking enough of a gamble by risking a typecasting in the "superhero" genre... and by being in the same movie with Dakota, I'm sorry to say.

The truth of the matter, however, is this. However much some inflate or upbeat recent events, it remains true that Dakota Fanning's career is in a severe slump... and "Hounddog" is the reason. And when that film next slinks out of the drainpipes, her handlers will have to face the consequences of their perfidity all over again. Unfortunately, so will poor Dakota.

And until she can break away from her exploiters' control of her and tell her story, honestly and openly, then her name and career will remain tarnished. How she could do that- or even if she has enough goodness of heart left to know how- is a big question. But it's the only chance she has to win back her fanbase... and her chance for a decent life.

ME / Steve..
i gess your right there is more then one push movie out there ahaha.. but Y go to Hong Kong to film it??.. havent sceen any of the new movies yet

Steven Mark Pilling

Dear Anonymous: I honestly don't know what's happened to that creepy "Winged Creatures" movie beyond it being shown in some film festivals. The producers were supposed to have already had distribution lined up. "Coraline" is supposed to be out sometime next year, but it was a crude animated feature with little to be said for it. Part of it was shown at a recent Sci-Fi convention. That little film short with Kate Hudson was made, although how and where it's to be presented... but it matters little! In the upcoming "Hurricane Mary", she has another voiceover, downgraded from a live performance for unexplained reasons. "Push" is actually the only effort of note she's made since "Hounddog"... and it's no big-budget blockbuster either. And if "Push" crashes- and especially if it does with Dakota's appearance considered a factor in any way- then it may be her swansong. Then it's a matter of cheap R-rated teen sex flicks until final oblivion. That's how I see it right now. I dearly wish I could say something more upbeat.

marshall stewart

If the movie's content bothers you, then stay away from it. Don't make such a big deal about it and teach your children the right way and everything will be all right.

Steven Mark Pilling

Dear Marshall:

How many times have I heard that same argument applied every time someone objects to a film or TV program on moral grounds? What it means, in essence, is that if one sticks his head in the sand, the evil will go away. In fact (and like so many others) I spent many years looking the other way in that same spirit, thinking that it would have to get better, because it couldn't get any worse.

But it did get worse. And it got so much worse that it reached the point where child pornography had come to be legitimized. You can't just turn away, Marshall. You can't just turn off the set and say that this makes it all right or that because you don't see it (now) that it doesn't exist. That's how evil flourishes.

It's not just a matter of those child actors who are abused and corrupted in the making of obscene or otherwise mentally damaging motion picures, et al. It would be enough, though, because all children's souls are precious and their salvation is the basic reason for an adult's existance. And, it must be pointed out, what happens in Hollywood is relected in the other varied facets of the popular culture.

And there lies the biggest danger from non-intervention. The popular culture has saturated the day to day life experience of us all. It's everywhere and, in all it's forms, easily accessible to children and in more ways than most adults even suspect. And kids, being kids, lack the power of discrimination and evaluation. They're dependent on adults for that. And, unfortunately, not even the most loving and conscientious of parents can control it.

That's why this depravity must be attacked at it's source. There's no other way. Inaction will only result in more and more children being inculcated with warped, soul-damaging and largely false viewpoints of life at a time when they're the least able to cope with it. When those terrible impressions are re-enforced by repeated exposure, then real tragedies are forthcoming as a result.

I might also point out that the rise of depravity and pornography in the culture was concurrent with the huge leap of crimes against women and children. This is where tolerance and inaction has brought us. It's more than a theoretical moral issue. It's also a matter of life and death for the most innocent and (once) treasured segment of the human population.

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."- Edmund Burke.

Steven Mark Pilling

Dear Readers: I've received several unconfirmed rumors from various sources that the movie "Hounddog" is to be released in DVD in the near future. If so, this is a sad, but expected development. As to how much can be expected from this newly edited version or what may be forthcoming as to outtakes, interviews, etc. is anyone's guess. No doubt, when it does emerge once again from the sewer, they'll include as much filth as they can short of risking prosecution. They've got a lot of investment capital tied up in it now and they'll want as much back as they can. Stay tuned!

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.
Posted by: Amber | February 11, 2007 at 11:35 PM

Playing a character like this. It seems no one has the slightest issue with Hannah Fanning, better known as Dakota, having portrayed both a victim AND product of sexual abuse at the age of 6. I admit there was not the physical exposure as found in Hound Dog; however, the emotional dilemma of the character's situation she encounters, most certainly had to influence her in some way.

Steven Mark Pilling

Dear Last Poster:

Like I've said, it's easier to shield them from content than it is from concept. In that CSI episode, Dakota had to have some knowledge as to why she had to maintain a silent, striken stare for long periods or had to display bruises in the treatment scene. Her scenes were few enough, though, to where it's possible that she knew next to nothing about the full plot and how her character fitted in.

Sooner or later, though, she would have been asking questions. Certainly, about the time she was making "Hide & Seek" (a similar situation!) she would have to ask, "Why am I supposed to look like a zombie THIS time?" She would have to know in order to do her job.

For a long time, we've had this disconnect in our minds about child actors and what they've been increasingly called upon to do. You're right. The outcry against the use of children in such movies and TV programs as this should have started in the 1970s. We were either distracted by other events... or just chose not to look. We "just turned it off" (as liberals to this day enjoin us to do with things like "Hounddog") and thus left them free to up the ante with children again and again.

dakota fanning as a new one that comes out befor hounddog called cultass ..

Steven Mark Pilling

That's "Cutlass". It was a film short made under the auspices of "Glamour" magazine. They allowed three film actresses (Katie Hudson in this one) to direct a movie themselves as a part of a competition. I have no knowledge as to what it was about! As far as I know, the only way to see it is to access "Glamour's" website. Since the obvious tie-in here is to Dakota's associations from "Dreamer" rather than "Hounddog", the film is probably pretty tame. In box office value, though, it means nothing.

Steven Mark Pilling

Oh, yes. Is that Aubrey I'm talking to?

wow they are at it agin this time its a 12 yr boy yes a child rape movie

steve it is me aubrey
and i agree there trying to build it up

Nine Lives (2005) is out it went to DVD you can get it through walmart by mail it an R movie with sex durgs and lots more.. and por dee is in this one too

Steven Mark Pilling

Dear Aubrey:

I visited IMDB on "Nine Lives". I hadn't given it much attention before, thinking it a minor and unimportant indie flick. Of course, so was "Hounddog" at first glance! I didn't find any mention of a 12 year old boy in the cast. Were you thinking of "The Heart Is Deceitful Above All Things" and Jimmy Bennett?

But I did find out that "Nine Lives" was a grim and melodramatic "episodic" film as I had understood it to be; along the lines of the later "Winged Creatures". I knew that the Glenn Close/Dakota Fanning episode was weird and morbid, but not otherwise exploitative. What I failed to understand before was just how bad the other scenes of the film were. The entire film experience is what matters, whether or not a child was directly involved in the depravity elsewhere.

And Robin Wright Penn was in it. THAT I didn't know... and should have. Dakota was with Robert DeNiro (of "Taxi Driver" infamy) in her first serious R-rated movie. Her first agent in Georgia, Joy Purvis, was likewise the agent for Cody Hanford and Isabelle Fuhrman. And now dear Miss Wright meets Dakota in another despicable indie trash movie in 2005. All connections... chains of events in the road to "Hounddog" and the ultimate desecration of three children in an act of pornography.

And now all kids, actors or not, are in jeopardy. Ain't Hollywood wonderful?

the movie i spoke of is of a 12 yr old boy being rape by a school yeard bully the mother wants them to remove the rape scnen becouse she dont want to go through what dee did it was filmed over sea cant rember the name of it hollwod sucks ahahahaha

Steven Mark Pilling

Dear Aubrey: Sorry I was so late in responding. Yes, you're referring to "The Kite Runner". I haven't heard much about it since the young Afghan actor's parents got upset about his character being sodomized in the film. That's probably because the lawyers are hammering out a deal of some sort and don't want any adverse publicity in the process. And yes, I agree with your definition of Hollywood!

The comments to this entry are closed.