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

« AUTOPSY SAYS HOMICIDE | Main | Houndog Director on Dakota Fanning Rape Scene At Sundance »

January 24, 2007



Steven Mark Pilling

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

Instructed to look right or left?... and not told why?? Please get serious, "Me". Just for once. These are children, for God's sake! And, what's more, they're also actors and, therefore, smarter than average. As in "Hounddog" or other films of it's general ilk, they couldn't help but know what was happening and why. You can't insulate them from something like this: Not in acting and, certainly, not in concept. They have to read the script and understand, not only what they're doing and why, but what the other actors are as well. They must do so because they're interacting with them. We've been over and over this.

Just consider the story line as you've just (and, from what I've discovered, correctly) presented it. Consider what Jimmy Bennett had to say, do and KNOW to play such a part! Do you intend this as an excuse for "Hounddog" because it may well match that likewise despicable film in it's depravity and exploitation of children? As in other like movies, this is no excuse at all. It is merely an added cause for bitter shame.

Still, you've provided me a service by bringing this little-known cinematic travesty to my attention. These are the basic facts that I've gleaned since my last message.


Steven Mark Pilling

Sorry. Computer troubles. Again, here's what I've discovered.

1. "The Heart is Deceitful Above All Else" (and what a smarmy, elitist title!) was filmed in Knoxville TN early in the year 2004.

2. It was, like "Hounddog", a cheap independent film whose backers remain anonymous.

3. Also like "Hounddog", it used underaged actors (at least four total) in perverse sexual and violent situations and in the context of that form of "art film" that south-haters refer to as "Southern Gothic".

4. It's starring actor (as well as being the director and writer) was Asia Argento, a well-known Italian filmmaker and a notorious porn star. Think Deborah Kampmeier and Robin Wright Penn combined... and then some!

5. It premiered in that hyper-friendly venue of degenerate films, the Cannes Film Festival (2004).

6. The film then made the rounds of just about every similar festival in Europe and several in America, including the AFI. It was also featured in about every Gay & Lesbian film festival I've ever heard of!

7. It's distributor was Palm Pictures. There was a limited theatrical release on March 10th, 2006. This probably meant that it showed up in a few big city "art" theaters. It must have, because I never heard of it before now. Likely, this is the same route that The Motion Picture Group is yet hoping for "Hounddog".

8. It was released in video on June 6th, 2006 (D-Day!!). As to whether it can be found in major outlets like Blockbuster, I couldn't say right now. That it can be found in porn outlets, I have no doubt. Ironically, at this same time, Dakota Fanning was being desecrated in heart and soul in Wilmington.

Note: It was also the very day I told an online critic of Dakota's that, if she ever did anything to betray the love and devotion of her young supporters, I'd be the first to take her to task. I meant it. If only I'd known what was even then happening!

7. Among the other credited adult actors were has-been Peter Fonda and notorious transsexual rock star Marilyn Manson!

8. Among the uncredited were the fallen Winona Ryder (reduced to this!) and popular teen TV star Willa Holland.

9. The Sprouse twins had what was apparently a collective bit role as "Jeremy" (Bennett's role) as an older boy. How they were used and what they were exposed to is unknown as yet.

10. Jimmy Bennett has an extensive resume in mostly small roles in films and TV. Perhaps his best-known part was as "The Flash" in the movie "Daddy Day Care". Ironically, one of his child co-stars in that film was Elle Fanning in one of her first roles independent of her sister.

11. The film was rated R for "intense depiction of child abuse/neglect, strong sex and drug content, pervasive language and some violence". At least "Hounddog" didn't have drug use!

12. Mz. Argento is the daughter of an Italian director who was himself known for "controversial" films. She was her father's on-set apprentice in his sex and violence ridden epics from the age of 10. Depravity, as always, begats more and worse depravity.

Anything more to add, "Me"? Or isn't this enough?

P.S. Thanks again, Aubrey, for raising the salient points that "Me" continually obfuscates or ignores. Best wishes!


13. The movie can be purchased at almost all online dvd stores and is available for rent at Netflix, Blockbuster, and almost every online rental service and local video store.

14. The book which is far more graphic is available for sale at almost every online and traditional bookstore including Walmart, Target, Amazon, Books A Million, and Barnes and Noble.

15. The movie is legal to view, own, transport, sell, distribute, and display.

16. No one was arrested, jailed, or accused of breaking any laws.

The rest I already knew.


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

April 16, 1994 Lukas Haas turned 18 years old. A legal adult old enough to make his own decisions and to choose the film roles for himself. Since becoming an adult he has chosen to be in at least eight movies involving sex, drugs, violence, or death including the lead role as a male prostitute in the movie "Johns". No one made him take these roles. His parents no longer control his career. If his childhood was so bad as you claim for his role in "Leap of Faith"? "Alan & Naomi"? "Convicts"? "Witness"? What movie did he do that wasn't a PG film that caused all his emotional distress anyway? I don't remember him being in any movies where he was required to act out any sexual scenes so how does he relate to the discussion. If he never acted in a sexual scene then he isn't exactly a good source for an opinion of what it's like, is he?

Steven Mark Pilling

Dear "Me":

As you yourself have pointed out, there are more forms of child exploitation than just sexual. In Haas' case, it was graphic violence and terror as he played a hunted child marked for murder by drug-dealing cops. He was nine years old when he made the film and spoke the words I quoted.

And as to what he's done in adulthood? Doesn't that only make my long-standing point? When you subject impressionable children to exploitative situations and concepts, there will be trauma. It will color a child's mental state into adulthood if untreated and/or if the circumstances of that trauma (Hollywood's continuing depravity, in this case) remain unaltered. Think, if you will, about where Dakota Fanning will be when she's Haas' present age and what her resume (if any) will reflect. In fact, think about where she is NOW.

As for "The Heart...etc.", are you surprised that it's available in these outlets? I'm not. As you once pointed out, Germany's "The Tin Drum" is worse than "Hounddog" in it's making and concept. I've seen it on a Blockbuster rack... just as I fear to see "Hounddog" there some day.

The fact that pornography like this is still widely available in video and print, again, does not justify it. The pollution of the popular culture is at the heart of this entire controversy. It's only when it's turned to the legitimization of child porn that once-unmindful adults like myself have belatedly taken notice. Now we're taking action.

"Hounddog", as you have repeatedly (and correctly!) argued, is neither the first nor the worst. It was, however, the worst yet known in American films. That it starred and, thus, grossly degraded the name and soul of the most beloved child actress of our era made it visible above others. When you pornographize a child that so many others have come to almost consider one of the family, it becomes personal.

YOU see this moive
[the good mother] Asia Vieira a child actor.
playes molly as a 6yr old girl touches a pinnes in this movie and much more nudy as well is this legal ?? she touches his pinnes. shes in the bathroom with him hes nud they show it going on its on DVD this is F^^^King sick man O but its just acting.
hey acting or not she really touches his pinnes and from what conny J. siad WE HAVE TO HAVE A touching. your thoughts

PS O by the way Kampmeier dient say if dakota was in the room with david morse or not has he masterbated she just siad you have to look at it

O ya even if she dident see him on set she did go see the movie so there ya go. this is sad Y are they making so meny movies with kids haven sex with adults. real or not its RONG. RONG RONG RONG...

Steven Mark Pilling

Dear Aubrey:

"The Good Mother" is the name of this film? I'll check up on it. If it's a foreign film, then it's only more of the same. Europeans have been making legal child porn for years.

However, as "Me" has shown us (although with sick justification in mind) "Hounddog" has apparently had it's predecessors in infamy here in America, too. Jimmy Bennett is far less known than Dakota Fanning and the film which was, like "Hounddog", never released to general theaters, was also never exposed by the media. That plus Dakota's overwhelming prominence as a child actress (and, perhaps, because of the level of indecency involved) made "Hounddog" the "cause celebre".

If "The Heart is Deceitful Above All Things" was made in 2004 and slipped in under the Hollywood watchers' radar screen, then we have to ask ourselves, "What else might have?". This film may be another. If so, how many more after it? And how many other foreign obscenities like "The Tin Drum" are to be found on the racks in a Blockbuster outlet?

If "Hounddog" was our "wake-up call", it may have been a more belated one than we first realized. That makes this issue ever more important. If legalized child porn has become that well ensonced in domestic filmation, then it's not so hard to imagine why the "Hounddog" producers thought they could do something like this and get away with it. The precedent was already there. They just tried for too much too soon... and with "America's Daughter" right in the midle of it!

here one more. Glass House: The Good Mother /the good mother this website has all the movies ever made by child actors.
this is the website ME posted here so i took a look at it and now there are lots more of them on this website. kids haven sex/scen with adult.
my gess is they think there above the law.
and they work lopholes to get around the law. not all these movies are made in the usa. so hounddog is not the frist movie made like this and there are movies much wors then hounddog.
and when it come to movie stars the law is double standard paris hilton proved that. the things they do in the movies like this will put you or i any one in jail. in the so called real world. por linz Lohan i love her she a good actor. she to tuched a places in my hart in The Parent Trap. and brook got shaved humped and she was nud in her movie pritybaby how can they get away with maken these movie and no one is doing anything about it. theres alot of these movies that have nud / simi nud in these movies plus the so called child model websites its bad very bad but it stell gos on even more now then ever just like durgs the young in movies get access to all of this Y cant they stop it.

Steven Mark Pilling

Dear Aubrey:

Sorry I've been so tardy in responding.

As I've said, that "The Heart" movie certainly looks like it matched "Hounddog" in it's vile usage of a child actor. It's limited distribution and the fact that the child actor was a relative unknown (despite his resume) is no doubt why it passed unnoticed. "The Good Mother" features another young boy in a film of violence and drug use. How closely he was associated with the scenes that made it an R-rated film; that I couldn't say. However, the very fact that I child was in any way concerned with an R-rated movie is, by itself, despicable.

As for "Hounddog" (and even "Winged Creatures") the silence on their progress is "deafening"! "Hounddog" was gone deeper underground than it was during the months between it's "outing" and it's disasterous premiere at Sundance. Not a peep out of anyone... except a cryptic comment by Dakota a while back about it being out late this year or early next year. I doubt she really knows anything, either.

They're probably just giving it time for the public to forget before re-introducing it in a highly re-edited form. These people are amoral and tenacious in pursuit of profits as they've continually proven. What matters now is seeing that this issue (which is staggering in it's implications) is not forgotten and that the principals of it are continually called into account.

That's what I intend to do. If we let up, they win. Just stay vigilant for any news and make your voice heard. Best wishes. Stay in touch.


You have met Katie Holmes ??!! :D

Steven Mark Pilling

Dear Anais: Dakota Fanning reportedly performed in a film short with (and directed by) Katie Holmes. It was part of some project that allowed Hollywood actors who had never directed a chance to do so. What it was about and how or when it will ever be presented; that I can't say. No doubt Dakota met Katie during the filming of "War of the Worlds". Just some Hollywood trivia!

Steven Mark Pilling

Dear Crimeblog Readers: If you are regular readers, then you're aware from my numerous comments of how I stand on the issue of the motion picture "Hounddog" and why I consider it a critical and defining moment in the history of our rapidly devolving popular culture. Although this dark and twisted film was, even after many edits, still soundly rejected at January's Sundance Film Festival, it has not ceased to exist. It is now owned by The Motion Picture Group and is reportedly undergoing yet another re-edit in their hopes of bringing it to theaters and, presumably, to DVD. If anyone has encountered any new information regarding this piece of "legitimized" child porn or relavent news concerning any of it's principals, please relay that information here. Also, my website can be accessed at This is still a dangerous development that affects the future of America's children. Your attention and goodwill is appreciated. God bless.


Steven Mark Pilling. I like your style. But I want to go further. I am not just against child actors performing sex scenes or sexually suggestive scenes. I am against child actors standing nude anywhere near a movie set in any context, unless the child perhaps is under the age of two. Read this article; and find out why I feel this way and tell me what you think.


"Dear Anais: Dakota Fanning reportedly performed in a film short with (and directed by) Katie Holmes. It was part of some project that allowed Hollywood actors who had never directed a chance to do so. What it was about and how or when it will ever be presented; that I can't say. No doubt Dakota met Katie during the filming of "War of the Worlds". Just some Hollywood trivia!"

More disinformation from your huge collection of Hounddog files compiling all the reliant details? Dakota was in a short movie directed by Kate Hudson. The short film is part of Glamour magazine's third series of Reel Moments, three short films directed by Hollywood insiders. The '70s-period father-daughter story stars Kurt Russell opposite Dakota, comedian Kevin Hart and Chevy Chase. Dakota met Kurt Russel during the filming of Dreamer: Inspired by a True Story the same year War of the Worlds was filmed. More accurate Hollywood trivia!

I did meet Katie Holmes, even went to her apartment one time. She was nice but this was before she meet Tom Cruise and became a freak. I started a petition to rename the the Issable Holmes bridge the "Katie Holmes Bridge" but that didn't get anywhere except on WGNI radio's traffic reports.

Steven Mark Pilling

Dear Josh: Thank you and I agree fully with your sentiments. And I will access your site. If you're the same "Josh" I think you are, then we've messaged elsewhere in the past. Best wishes.

Steven Mark Pilling

Dear "Me":

So, in other words, what I said WASN'T disinformation. It was just a matter of your adding a few more details than I did.

Look, "Me"; if you want to clarify a point or add more info for the sake of curiosity in some cinema event, important or not, then just do so. I accept your claims of having Industry ties and I honestly look forward to the times when you relate practical and non-biased information. In fact, that was one of my reasons for my revealing my website to you. Useful facts can occasionally be gleaned from your commentary.

However, I must tell you that the lengths you now go to to attack me personally (as in your last post) are becoming both ludicrous and embarassing. In fact, I did comment on that film short to the extent that you just did... but elsewhere. There was no need to do so here. This blog is about a criminal act committed against children that stands to have profound repercussions to them all. It's not a forum on Dakota Fanning's ongoing and regrettably tarnished life and career. She's important only insofar as, 1) she was the principal tool used by those criminals in the commission of their crime and 2) because she's a kid herself and her soul is as precious as any of their's. 'Nuff said.

By the way (and in passing curiosity only!) do you think that Tom Cruise has turned Katie Holmes into a freak? Is he really himself as freakish and corruptive as that? Little surprises me that comes out of Hollywood any more. And I'd really like to know the story behind that bridge. Since I once lived in your area, I might just be inclined to sign your petition!


Steven Mark Pilling

Boy! How'd I miss this one?

Not one witness? Speculation? All the same old jive.

I hardly even need to answer this one, "Me". Tre has already done so and with authority. You're right, though, about the media being "played"... but not as you think. They, like yourself, were played by Hollywood and the reluctant D.A.s into underreporting a key event in filmmaking- one that stands to not only endanger America's children directly, but to actually impose Hollywood's decadent redefinition of children on American society.

And this: If anyone can look on this film- even to it's final edited form alone- and not deem it to be at least exploitative, if not pornographic- then that person has serious personal moral issues.

Steven Mark Pilling

Dear Folks: Sorry about that last posting. It was in error. I didn't notice that the blog had been reformatted and answered a posting from "Me" that was dated January 31st! That's what happens when you rush! And I'd encourage all posters to check out Joshua's website (see September 6). Best to all.



I was just correcting your misinformation in that you claimed it was Katie Holmes that directed the short, it wasn't it was Kate Hudson. Katie Homes lived in Wilmington during the long run of Dawson's Creek. Kate Hudson was the daughter of Bill Hudson and Goldie Hawn and was raised by Kurt Russell, Goldie Hawn's longtime partner. The same Kurt Russel from the Dakota movie Dreamer and the short directed by Kate Hudson. Amazing how these people are so connected.

The site posted by Joshua has been around for a while and it deals with the movie "Now and Then" a PG-13 kids movie. The scene with the skinny dipping boys was about as innocent as could be. Nothing about that movie was exploitive.

What's up with the Jan 31st thing? That really had me confused???

Steven Mark Pilling

Dear "Me":

Thanks for correcting that Holmes/Hudson error of mine. I guess a lot of folks habitually mix them up. Kind of like Bill Paxton vs. Bill Pullman! Of course, both of those ladies have a husband or father who was Dakota's co-star... which doesn't help.

I was meaning to check out Joshua's site more fully today, but I started having a lot of server problems. I can related to a lot of what he says, personally, but I've only gotten through the first 2 1/2 pages. One of his comments did remaind me of another facet of online depravity I discovered that's potentially threatening to kids... the so-called "spanko" sites. I like to say that I haven't led a sheltered life but, my God, I've run into some internet perversions of types that I never knew existed. Either these individuals are getting more inventive or I've missed a few things along the way! That particular one I've been meaning to address for a while.

And that January 31st thing was my screw-up. I scrolled down as usual, saw your posting and answered it. What I didn't see in my haste was that the format has changed here and that posting of yours was seven months old. I guess that should be filed under "duplication of effort"!

But I have to agree with Joshua as far as child nudity is concerned. Once a child is past the toddler stage, nudity starts to carry a connotation of sexuality. This movie you mentioned seems to be along the same lines as the Dakota/Cody scenes in "Hounddog"... the ones that that Sundance guy terrifyingly referred to as "innocent sexual games". That phrase, to me, rates right along with Osbrink's "tastefully done" chicanery.

It's not a matter of prudishness, though. It's prudence at the very least. One rule every filmmaker should follow with child actors, whether he's a Christian or not, should be... when in doubt, don't. A lot of trouble, worry and potential danger to all concerned could be avoided right there.

Okay, enough for now. Left you a long post on my site a while ago. It took me four tries and a lot of stubbornness after my computer dropped off line three straight times, without warning, while I was still in the middle of typing it out. My rather un-Christian analysis of these events probably still has the neighbors cringing!

Best wishes.

Steven Mark Pilling

Dear Joshua:

I read over your essay on your website today. Let me say in return that "I like your style" as well. It was like reading a compendium of many of my own salient points over the past year plus a number I never considered. You make an excellent overall case. I'm sorry that I was unable to leave you a reply, but your first guestbook is full and your second one not active yet.

If you get a chance, browse over my website
at " You'll find "Me" there, too! I'd like your evaluation as well. I'm also a regular visitor to this site, as you've undoubtedly noticed!

Best regards.


i just have to add my little bit, some people would make out that the scene 39. would be bad, also the rape scene, but lets think of this as maybe a true story, does that seem to change it any? and also, lets think about the time it is supposed to be in, like things like these never happened then. also, the media takes everything out of proportion, ever since 9/11, but i will not go into that, too much to say on the subject. but seriously, lets think back to when we were all kids ok. did you ever have a friend, and you were curious and all. is this not where that comment came from, you show me your if i show you mine, seriously. its people who make a big deal out of such a thing that creates chaos in this world today, not only a month ago, a friend of mine was telling me this crap her friend is going through, cause her 12 year old son, and his friend, an 11 year old girl got caught just exploring, as children have always been known to do, its human nature, of course if they are caught doing such things, we do not freak out about it, why you may ask, cause studies show that reacting in such a way causing sexual problems in an older age, such as a mother screaming at catching her sun playing with himself, and so on. but my friend told me, that her friends son could possible be considered a sex offender, and a predator because of them being kids and explorer as kids do. so if its ruled as rape. he will have to register, this 12 year old boy. now tell me are we beginning to take things just a little too far? i think we all need to just take a step back, and look at things in more then one perspective. not just look at something and go. OMG ITS HORRIBLE. THIS SHOULD NOT BE. no we need to be more like, wow that's disturbing, or w/e, but wait, what really is wrong with this. is there anything good that can come from it? if so does it outweigh the bad? or not? seriously. i could make my point on and on. speratic as it may be. but to some it would not matter, like the profile people. hey wait, this could be a good movie for them. be like watch this uncut version, think of yourself as the mother, and she gets pregnant because of such a thing? should she really keep it? ok. and on that note i am done. enjoy.

Steven Mark Pilling

Dear Larry:

It just depends on how far you're prepared to go in justifying indecency with children for profit. Naturally, children are curious about their "differences". We all were. Explaining this to children in terms they can understand is a duty of parents.

This movie was not about "exploring children's sexuality" (as the filmmakers still relentlessly proclaim) but about exploiting it. Nor was it about "raising awareness" as a "public service"... as those filmmakers, like all pornographers, are quick to forward. It was about the degradation of actual children on a film set for the "entertainment" of others... for a modest fee!

It was also about the degradation and exploitation of all other children through the proxy of these child actors and the legitimization of child pornography (and the future profits thereby) through their travails. That's what pornography does. It drags the human spirit and the worth of human existance down into the dirt. Child pornography does this with actual children.

The "Hounddog" case has not been "blown out of proportion". In fact, just the opposite has occurred, as the media and legal officials have turned their heads from its ugly reality. That's why some of us have been dedicated to keeping the story alive; not only in a quest for justice for American children, but to keep the legacy of this film from engendering other and even worse obscenities in its wake.


hi steve ..
have you sceen hounddog yet?
i have but its the strong edit one
no masterbation sceen with david in the shead they just show dakota and buddy standing there then brak away then they come back to the shead sceen and dakota and buddy stand up
dakota is putting on hir shart but she has an under shart on so was not nud all the river sceen she had on underwear cant see anyone sceen where she was nude or have nude
she dident get into davieds lap she did walk down a street in front of him has it looked he dident have anything on but can see anything the other girl in the movie they took out the snake sceen with all the kids is did a tub sceen she looked nude in the tub but can see any bady parts the way that shot some of the sceens with dakota in bed getting up its like they had the cam right up hir but they was edit too the part when she walked in with friut in dress that dident showing anything like these guys sead it did there was asceen when dakota came back from grashopers house she had on a wite dress it was too small for dakota so it showed hir but and she had on underwear
in the rape sceen cant see anything

so now what was it they saw on set is noughting to what there showing on the big screen

they took out alot of sceens


omg did i tip that ahaha tipo
sorry guys
meds !!

Steven Mark Pilling

Dear Aubrey:

Good to hear from you and sorry for my delay in replying. This has been one of the busiest and most frustrating two months of my life!

No, I haven't gotten around to checking out the DVD, yet. Not personally. Every time, I find myself up to my neck in work. However, a number of my correspondents have. Their reports reflect your's. In fact, the bulk of the identified pornographic scenes in the film were either "moderated" (like the "rape" scene) or removed entirely. They took care to edit out every frame they could that would lessen the outcry and still leave them with something recognizable as a plot.

That, by the way, included the scene filmed at Orton Plantation. That's the one where Dakota takes Cody and Isabelle out into a field at gunpoint, forces them to strip and fondle one another... then ties a snake around their necks. They cut that out entirely. Orton's proprietor is probably breathing sighs of relief!

Of course, the filmmakers know that "Hounddog" is DOA... even in DVD. But they were committed to distributing it. And, even with the lackluster reception it appears to be garnering, they can still recoup SOME of their losses over a long period. After all, I picked up that dust covered DVD of Kampmeier's "Virgin" at my local Blockbuster. It was necessary... but was still a little of my money in Deborah's pocket! The same can be said when I get ahold of "Hounddog".

I think that, right now, Empire Film Group is more concerned with avoiding negative publicity from the film than they are in making any money off of it. They also are looking at the ongoing efforts in North Carolina that the movie has spurred. As long as they can point to the current version of "Hounddog" and say, "Welll... it really wasn't that bad, was it?" (counting on the public not understanding that the edited scenes and the concepts involved are the key factors) then they stand to limit their liability in any threat of legal procedures.

Remember, Aubrey; some of those laws that the "Hounddog" filmmakers broke in 2006 have no statute of limitations. Don't think that EFG, Full Moon Films, the NC Film Office and the Osbrink Talent Agency have forgotten that! But... the more time between them and the event, the colder the case. They'll continue to keep their heads down and hope that the controversy doesn't flare up anew.

Best wishes to you.


The comments to this entry are closed.