# Dakota Fanning rape scene



## Carol (Jan 18, 2007)

Dakota Fanning, a 12 year old wunderkin actress, is in a movie screening at Sundance.  In the movie she is depicted in what I've heard described as a violent rape scene...the rape takes place after scenes of abuse.

I haven't seen the clip or the movie in question and apparantly neither have the folks that are talking about it on the news channel that I'm watching.  However, the scene seems to be raising quite a bit of ire.

I don't know anything about the movie other than it is set in 1950's Alabama.

One person states that it probably isn't necessary, although suspected that Ms. Fanning's parents would not let her participate in such a scene if they thought it would be damaging to her. Another person expressed staunch outrage saying that it was inappropriate for a "little girl".  

Sexual assaults often go unreported...I don't know if a movie like this would encourage anyone to step forward or not.  I will admit that seeing a 12 year old simulating a forcible rape is not very high on my priority list.

Anyone else been following the story?  What do you think?


----------



## Andrew Green (Jan 18, 2007)

I did a little search, very little.

Movie is called "Hounddog" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hounddog http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0415856/ ) 

Apart from that I see nothing but complaints and outrage from people that seem to have little facts and lots of assumptions about how evil it is.  And right there is why I will withhold any judgment, no one talking seems to have any idea what the scene really contains, how it was shot, or anything beyond "This is horrible and wrong and heads should fly"

I don't think that the subject is necessarily bad, in fact I would applaud people bringing it out into the open rather then leaving it as a "don't talk about it" issue.    If it makes people angry and there was nothing really wrong in the shooting, good.  But be angry about the fact that it happens in reality, not that some movie producer shoved it in your face and made you realize it does happen.

That said, it is off course a touchy issue, and would have walked a very fine line between making the point, and causing "abuse" themselves.  I don't know which side of that line they stepped on, hopefully it was the correct one.


----------



## kcast (Jan 18, 2007)

just from reading the little bit above it sounds disturbing, and inappropriate


----------



## Andrew Green (Jan 18, 2007)

How about compared to other roles?  The Exorcist had some scenes that I imagine trump this, it's considered a classic.  Pretty Baby pushed the envelope pretty hard, Blue Lagon as well...

Disturbing, yes, but I imagine it was meant to be disturbing, the question is where adequate steps taken to protect her, or was she exploited?


----------



## Jade Tigress (Jan 19, 2007)

I read in the two links Andrew provided that Dakota Fanning is nude or in underpants in some scenes. That hardly seems appropriate. The rape scene, I don't know, depends on how it's done. It sounds rather disturbing, not because we don't like being reminded that it happens in real life, we all know it does. But many graphic movie scenes are unnecessary and gratuitous. Much can be implied to get a message across without graphically depicting it.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Jan 19, 2007)

Jade Tigress said:


> I read in the two links Andrew provided that Dakota Fanning is nude or in underpants in some scenes. That hardly seems appropriate. The rape scene, I don't know, depends on how it's done. It sounds rather disturbing, not because we don't like being reminded that it happens in real life, we all know it does. But many graphic movie scenes are unnecessary and gratuitous. Much can be implied to get a message across without graphically depicting it.


 
*How true*!  Sometimes less is more.  Reminds me of a movie I watched just a little while ago where they showed the horrible beast right from the get go and I lost interest almost immediately.  In this case I hope they did not cross the line.


----------



## FearlessFreep (Jan 19, 2007)

As a movie viewer:

If the scene in question is central to the character development in the movie and there was no other way to portray what happened, such as there is something in the scene itself that is portrayed that is crucial to what happens to the character afterwards which could not be shown unless the actual scene was played out before the audience, and it leads to the audiences empathy, sympathy, disgust, etc...of the characters involved, *and* if the general tenor of the movie is such that this is a story that is worth telling, then I would admit that the scene probably would be acceptable, at least from an artistic point of view.

However, if the scene is simply played for the shock value, for the visceral response of the audience to add an edge to an otherwise boring or uninteresting movie, and the events of the scene could have been handled in aless graphic way, then it's exploitation.

I don't mind having my emotions manipulated if it's to take me on a journey that is worth taking, even if it leaves me unsettled.  I do mind having my emotions manipulated overtly simply because the (artist) is too unskilled to do so in a more subtle way way

As a parent:
I have a 12 yo daughter.  I'm pretty sure  that if she was an actress I would not want her doing a scene like that and as a movie viewing parent I'm pretty sure I would want to see such a scene unless I was very damn sure it was needed (as in, 'your telling me a great story ...and this is needed to make the story great')


An as an aside, parents of child actors and actress are not known for their good judgement when it comes to their money-making child stars.  I don't know anything about the Fanning family, but I would not take it in general as meaning much if an underage actress was in a violent sex scene because her parents said it would be all rigt.


----------



## Andrew Green (Jan 19, 2007)

Would the Exorcist have been the same movie if the more shocking scenes where omitted as unneccessary or implied off screen?

Underpants?  Meh, have a look through some catalogues / flyers.  Kids in underpants are really not that out of line, unless they got her wearing a thong or something, but somehow I doubt that.

Nude?  Well, from what I have scene that is just speculation on the part of people that haven't got a clue and are just guessing.

The biggest exploitation I have seen on this so far is how some people, probably politicians or reporters, decided that creating a mob backing around this would further there career.  Of course the more dirt they try and stir up, the more people will go and see the movie to see what all the fuss is about.


----------



## Kreth (Jan 19, 2007)

Brian R. VanCise said:


> *How true*!  Sometimes less is more.  Reminds me of a movie I watched just a little while ago where they showed the horrible beast right from the get go and I lost interest almost immediately.  In this case I hope they did not cross the line.


Yeah, I thought they showed Paris Hilton way too early in House of Wax too...


----------



## MA-Caver (Jan 19, 2007)

It is probably as Fearless said about how to impact the audience and to get maxium reaction out of the scene or empathy for the character or story line. 
But to graphically play out a rape/molestation isn't always necessary. One example I can think of is Forrest Gump. We knew from Forrest' narration how his girl Ginny was molested "her daddy was always hugging and kissing on her", but we never saw any of it (yet deep down in our minds we knew that's what Forrest was refering to ...even if *he* didn't) ... then later we see the adult couple walking and they end up in front of Ginny's old house and she loses it ... throwing rocks vehmently at the diplapated building  and cursing her father "why did you do it!?" ... so empathy creation there was well done. 
There have been other rape scenes portrayed in movies, some graphic: "I spit on your grave" is one, "Rush" and "Basic Instinct."  Were these necessary to the story line? :idunno: who can tell. 
Definitely further insight to the scene and movie itself is needed before passing final judgement on it IMO. But I don't think it was necessary to use an actual child to depict this dispicable act of violence. 
I too questioned why Brooke Shields mother allowed her own daughter to be in scenes from Pretty Baby and Blue Lagoon. Seems that money talks.


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hounddog  There are rumored to be a number of graphic, "horrific" scenes in the movie, including a scene where Fanning's character is raped, and others where she appears to be naked or just in "underpants." [2] According to sources close to the production, "The two taboos in Hollywood are child abuse and the killing of animals. In this movie, both things happen."[2] The production coordinator for Hounddog says Dakota Fanning was wearing a body suit during the entire rape scene and there was a child welfare worker on the set, along with Fanning's agent and her mother. It now appears Dakota Fanning was wearing a flesh-tone body suit (or a two piece suit) when she acted out the rape scene in "Hound Dog." Defenders of the production company were silent for two weeks when the controversy erupted, and now offer up this "cover up excuse," days later, as proof that they were, in fact, concerned about the propriety of wardrobe worn in this rape scene using the talents of a twelve year-old child. These same voices are silent about what Dakota was wearing when she filmed the mutual masturbation scene.
> On January 18th, a film starring Dakota Fanning is set to debut at the Sundance Film Festival. "Hound Dog," filmed in North Carolina, is getting a lot of buzz because in this movie, 12 year-old Dakota Fanning acted out a rape scene, on camera, and in the script, was called upon to perform mutual masturbation with another actor, a scene which may or may not be in the final cut of the movie. Reports persist that the footage of the masturbation scene was conveniently destroyed. What we know for certain is that a professional movie crew was so outraged during filming of the rape scene that they walked off the set.


----------



## Infinite (Jan 19, 2007)

So some back story,

I was 15 and in highschool and doing plays I liked plays. My best friend Jamie got into doing this play in Ann Arbor about 45 minutes away. He was sixteen with a car so he asked the next year if I would want to try out.

So I did it was for a part time director of our highschool so the audition went well. He played the lead I played the lead characters mind in offset monalog.

The play was about date rape and this is how I became a rape councelor for 5 years.

Anyway I got trained to be a rape councelor in case people came up to us and reacted to the subjact matter. We did plays in highschools and colleges it was really well done. I mean REALLY well done all pantamime and emotion. It was raw and real and I was blessed to have done it I really did put some good into the world.

Now 13 year old rape scene with no details... Well I can't comment but I can tell you that at 15 and being the "mind" of a date rapist it didn't traumatise me it emboldended me. I taught self defense to women I spoke them about guys and how they think and date rape.

Who knows this could be that way... 

This reminds me of Dogma and Christian's protesting the movie never having saw it. They litterally said on Camera, "I would never see a movie like this its horrible."

um ... how can you judge it if you have never seen it. You are judging what you THINK it is and apparently these people think pretty nasty thoughts. I can think of several ways to do the rape scene that would get the point across and not compromise the dignity or the ethics of the 13 year old girl.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jan 22, 2007)

Brook Sheilds all over again... "Pretty Baby"


----------



## Tames D (Jan 22, 2007)

I read where the DA's office reviewed the scenes from the film and found nothing illegal.


----------

