Dakota Fanning Naked And Raped For Oscar Gold

By Josh Tyler: 2006-07-23 00:00:00

Dakota Fanning Naked And Raped For Oscar Gold

If you think Dakota Fanning looks dead behind the eyes now, just wait until the 12-year-old star is naked and raped in her next movie.

Did that make anyone else throw up a little in their mouth? I had to hold down a full-on vomit while I typed it.

But it's true. In an article last week the New York Daily News reported on a movie called Hounddog, from sicko writer/director Deborah Kampmeir. The film is a drama set in the American South, and tells the story of a troubled girl and her love of Elvis Presley. Dakota Fanning plays the troubled little girl, and apparently she's troubled because she gets brutally raped on screen. The Daily News describes it this way: The script "calls for Fanning's character to be raped in one explicit scene and to appear naked or clad only in "underpants" in several other horrifying moments."

What makes the whole idea even more disgusting is that the Daily News says she may be doing it because her mommy and her agent think it can win her an Oscar. Apparently mommy hasn't seen The Woodsman. What kind of mother would put her 12-year-old daughter through something like this for a stupid statue and a few million bucks? Simulated or not, the thought of putting your little girl in that situation is abhorrent. Is it even legal for a 12-year-old girl to be naked on screen? Shouldn't anyone who goes to see the movie be arrested on the grounds that they're watching child pornography?

Don't think that this is just something in the script that might be taken out by cooler heads before filming, Dakota's carefully choreographed, sick sex sessions have already been shot. It was right about then that the movie ran out of funds. Surprise surprise, they're having a lot of trouble finding backers. Right now production is on hiatus while they look for cash. If we're lucky, they'll never find it.

They don't however seem to be having trouble finding bankable stars. Robin Wright Penn co-stars in the movie and excuses it by saying "I was attracted to it because in the end it's a story about human understanding." Maybe so, but before you get to the human understanding an innocent little girl is stripped naked and raped on screen. Sometimes the ends don’t justify the means.

Latest Headlines:

Sex And The City: Early Reviews Are In And They Aren't Good

Indiana Jones Tickets Vanishing Fast

John Woo Will Give You A History Lesson

First Choke Poster

Austin Powers 4 Still Possible After All

Viggo Mortensen In The Hobbit!

Flash Gordon Remake

First Look At Hilary Swank As Amelia Earhart

Highlander Remake To Heap More Humiliation On Fans

Jake Gyllenhaal In Prince Of Persia

Comment on “Dakota Fanning Naked And Raped For Oscar Gold”

Note: This website is not intended for use by minors. The views expressed in this comments section are not necessarily our own. Comments that we deem to be poorly worded, off topic, or threatening will not be published. For free, uncensored discussion visit our forum.

Matt Says:
July 23rd, 2006 at 20:07
Yeah, I saw this story on the news the other night. It was really sickening that her mom was basically giddy that her little girl could get an Oscar for this role.

matt s Says:
July 23rd, 2006 at 22:09
As far as it being illegal or not, I know one of the actors on American Dreams was underage when they shot her nude scene but it was allowed because her barents were on set. This is still messed up regardless of course..

gina Says:
July 24th, 2006 at 00:43
I think that Dakota Fanning has done a wonderful job so far as an actress, her parents and agent Cindy Osbrink have done a great job at helping Dakota choose roles that are right for the time. This film Hounddog, may be a risk but it is an experience that she and those around her are sure to learn from. In one article Dakota's agent Cindy says not just the rape scene - the whole story is challenging Dakota as an actress." Osbrink goes on to say"And I've never been so proud of her in my life. I've seen the dailies, and in every scene she gets better and better." This film could put Dakota in the OSCAR limelight, and in my opinion there isn't another child star that deserves it most. Her roles in I am Sam and War of the Worlds, were outstanding. She may be 12 years old but she has a much wiser understanding of human nature then performers twice her age. I wish her the best of luck with this film, and hope for the OSCAR gold... Rape and Abuse are horrifying things to think about, but they are something that happens in the real world, audiences may not be ready for it... but if Dakota were guest starring on Law and Order: SVU would things be percieved differently? The world needs to open their eyes and realize that a MOVIE is different from REALITY.

Varsity Says:
July 24th, 2006 at 00:45
Gina I think you're missing one very important thing:

SHE IS A LITTLE GIRL NOT AN ACTING ROBOT.

Experience? She'll gain experience from it? I guess so, in the way a rape victim gains "experience". But it's sure not the kind of experience any SANE parent should want their child to have.

Call the police, and call the police on Gina while you're at it.

Noriko Takaya Says:
July 24th, 2006 at 03:30
Can't we just *shoot* people who do things like this? I swear to god, there are times when I actually wonder if the Iranians and the Saudis don't have the right idea. Then I come to my senses.

But still.

aLBeRt™ Says:
July 24th, 2006 at 08:06
I believe that if you are going to work then do the work efficiently. Dakota's line of work is acting and true that she can choose the things that she will act but she also must know the consequence of those works that she accepts. It's just a role, one in line with Dakota's work, I cannot see anything wrong with that. She was not really raped but simulated and it was still a part of her work much as the editors here gives their opinion to a film, it might be good or bad but the judgement is always on the public. I am sure the naked and rape scene won't be the main focus of the film otherwise the people involved with this project would be so stupid to evoke stones thrown at them. It might be the selling point but it is not the main idea why this film is being developed. If it reaches us then it is good, if not and forever be shelved then is also good but Dakota accepted it so she knows what she is getting into. I'll do my work now cause there is a real world here actually. Besslama.

Adam Says:
July 24th, 2006 at 14:52
WTF! Child services! Take her away from her mom!

Robert Says:
July 24th, 2006 at 15:41
Does she have boobies yet?

I can't watie to see this movie, it's going to be legal and GREAT!

Alexa Says:
July 24th, 2006 at 19:22
Robert i just wanna say if you are going to act like a perve they sholdnt let you in the movie.I think it is a great challenge for Dakota and this happens in real life its telling of the challenges of being raped and illegaly sexualy abused.So back off and leave her alone.

SHE IS A CHILD Says:
July 24th, 2006 at 19:24
Alexa, I believe Robert was using satire. You on the other hand are defending putting a twelve year old girl on screen naked to simulate rape.

If anyone's acting like a perve it's you.

SuriNotCruise\'s Says:
July 25th, 2006 at 06:37
1st Brokeback Mountain now this sht... Hollywood is going too far! Why do they feel it needed to be so graphic with the subject visually/physically? For example, in A Time To Kill there were no nude/physical rape scenes in that movie, but you knew the little girl got raped. What's next? This scene is unnecessary and just disturbing!

Mark Says:
July 25th, 2006 at 06:37
I'm not saying it's right, but it's definitely not illegal. Nudity is not illegal no matter how old the person is. Nudity is legal, which is why there was no legal objection when Brooke Shields appeared nude at 12 yrs old.

Steven Mark Pilling Says:
July 25th, 2006 at 08:19
I'm seeing many of the same, tired and saddening excuses that I've been seeing on the other blogsites for the last four days. Joshua has it completely right. We are talking here about the use of a twelve year old child in a graphic scene of violent, incestuous sex. There is no legitimate way to soft-peddle this.

It doesn't matter if it has been done before without legal consquence. It's irrelevant if Dakota was "okay" with it. A child is not equipped to make such a judgement. Parents are. That's what they're for. It's becoming bitterly apparent that this little girl has been badly failed in this category.

Any adult who would visually prostitute his/her own daughter on camera in such a manner and warp his child's mind to such an extent that that child would be compliant to such an action, is one who is utterly unfit for parenthood. And more: Such parents should have their children removed from their custody. IMMEDIATELY. Then those parents should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. The charge of "Contributing to the Delinquency of a Minor" would only constitute one of the lesser offences.

God help us all.

Eric Says:
July 25th, 2006 at 13:14
Hollywood is doing it for the sensationalism. Few people remember the movie "Baby" that Brooke Shields did in her younger days, but the one group that does is the pedophiles. Why? Because Brooke is nude in several scenes and had the consent of her mother to do it. I don't know if she won any awards for it, but I find it horrifying that they need to include such graphic scenes in ANY movie. There was a lawyer movie a few years ago where the young girl was raped and then killed, but THEY NEVER SHOWED IT!! and it had the same effect for me as if they actually had shown it. I was sickened and saddened and couldn't wait for justice to be brought down on the guilty. With daughters of my own, I don't need to SEE it to already have a dread and revulsion for the crime. You can bet that my money will never come close to purchasing a ticket for anyone, but most of all me!

Eric

Sally Says:
July 25th, 2006 at 15:47
God help us all.

arik Says:
July 25th, 2006 at 15:47
this is the lowest that low can go. hollywood has indeed reached the bottom. a wonderful actress such as df has no reason in the world to do this. her oscar will come, give it some time. besides, don't women's careers' drop off after they win one? this is disgusting, vile, wicked, and senseless. and what's wrong with robin wright penn? human understanding? don't tell me this is about tolerance. that woman plays in so many questionable/controversal films, i honestly wonder what she's doing. anyone watch white oleander? this article is well written and i agree with josh taylor - thx

Mehdi Says:
July 25th, 2006 at 18:48
Oh I can;t believe that...
That's insufferable... she's my best favorite actress...
Hey... Why? Why?

Tony Says:
July 25th, 2006 at 23:00
Dakota Fanning sucks as an actress. Did you see her in "War of the Worlds?" All she did was scream like an idiot through the entire movie. Now, she is going to scream some more and hope for an Oscar. Maybe some day she will learn to acually act instead of b eing such a one-trick pony. Give me a break!

Frombork Says:
July 25th, 2006 at 23:00
To everyone who is freaking out:

Get over yourself, right now. This is a movie; learn to draw the line between fiction and reality. I will not be seeing this movie because I'm sure it'll be an overblown drama; you should probably all get tickets, seeing as you seem to love overblown drama.

To Josh Tyler specifically:

By addressing this issue as if Dakota were actually raped (see your headline "Dakota Fanning Naked And Raped...") you a) do a disservice to real child abuse victims, and b) help draw an enormous amount of attention to the film. Hounddog's promoters can't buy advertising this effective. Knee-jerk conservative responses like yours are exactly what they want. Good job.

Vincent Says:
July 25th, 2006 at 23:53
I wasn't aware that a distaste for naked 12-year-old girls was knee-jerk conservatism.

Seriously, has the whole world gone mad?

Yes it's a movie, and movies aren't real. But what IS REAL is that a little girl is going to be displayed naked on screen. The story isn't real, but her NUDE BODY IS REAL, and the fact that she's being displayed in a sexual situation IS REAL.

Sorry, anyone defending his movie is basically defending child pornography.

The fact that so many ARE defending it makes me pretty sick. I never knew what a sad world this was. How can so many people support this? Digusting. You're all disgusting.

Steven Mark Pilling Says:
July 26th, 2006 at 12:54
Right on the money, Vince. That's the key point to the entire arguement. Guys like "Fromdork" try to justify it as a social issue, which it's not. It's a moral issue of the highest magnitude, because it involves the safety and guidance of children. Isn't it amazing (and sickening) that so many fail to grasp this simple, but vital concept? It is, indeed, a sad world.

Get A Clue Says:
July 28th, 2006 at 09:10
What part of "acting" don't you people understand? Movies are MAKE BELIEVE. Even my 3 year old has a pretty good grap on this basic concept which seems to be eluding some of you.

And why are you so terrified of the human body? Why don't you do us all a favor, move to Saudi Arabia, and put on a burqua.

Anyone Remember Says:
July 28th, 2006 at 17:37
Anyone remember how the vulgar scenes in The Exorcist were filmed by a young girl as well? It's cinema, it's different from reality. Although, I think that her being topless in some scenes are a bit much...is that child porn? It's ok because it's considered "art?"

I think not.

/b/ Says:
July 29th, 2006 at 04:01
When the time is right, at the rape scene, I'll get up from my seat in the theatre and yell "YES!!" while making pelvic thrusts. Then i'll laugh myself to sleep recalling the reacton.

Oh and btw, lighten the fuck up, it's not real.

lightening up Says:
July 29th, 2006 at 04:03
It's not real? Unless Dakota is using a body double or they're doing her nudity with CGI then it IS real.

The movie, the plot, and the character aren't real, but the a little girl standing there naked is.

You have no point.

LadyKoi Says:
July 29th, 2006 at 08:39
Theres no winning here.

I am a bit creeped out by the whole thing, but interested at the same time.

confused Says:
July 29th, 2006 at 08:39
Actually, it is YOU who has no point.

I'm still trying to work out what it is, exactly, that you are all worked up about. Is it simply the fact that an underaged girl will be shown partially nude? Or the fact that she'll be simulating a rape scene?

If you're implying that an underaged girl shown in the nude is a form of child porn then I must know if you objected to any scene where a mother changes her child's nappy on screen. Is that porn too? Or what if a girl is filmed in the nude one day before her eighteenth birthday? Can the difference between "child porn"and "tasteful nudity"really come down to a single day in the callendar?

Steven Mark Pilling Says:
July 29th, 2006 at 10:57
Dear Confused:

Are you seriously suggesting that there is a moral equivalence between baby pictures and the live, graphic depiction of a child being molested on a cinematic production? Dakota Fannning isn't having her diapers changed, here. She is presented in the ultimate act of human violence and perversity. This is the most horrifying act that any little girl can experience, whether in reality or (only to a slightly lesser degree) staged.

And does anyone think that it was by accident that the most popular and beloved child actress in the world was obtained for this? Every degenerate in the world will be wanting to see this film if only to see his darkest fantasies realized. Don't think for a moment that the filmmakers weren't counting on this.

Josh Says:
July 29th, 2006 at 11:09
I've stayed out of this discussion in response to my article for the most part, though I've been fairly disgusted and revolted by the responses of some.

But I discovered something rather disturbing this morning that might explain the presence of people like "confused".

Apparently this article has been linked to by several "barely legal" porn aficionado discussion sites... and their members are now coming here trying to justify the film under the guises of fuzzylogic and bad reasoning so they can get their fix.

This is unconsionable, and won't be tolerated.

The words "12-year-old girl" and "tasteful nudity" should never be used in the same sentence.

There's no justifying this, and if you're going to try do so, do us all the courtesy of leaving your name, phone number, and address so the rest of us can pay you a visit to "encourage" you to change your ways.

Steven Mark Pilling Says:
July 30th, 2006 at 02:19
Amen, Josh. And you keep hearing those same old bankrupt excuses all over blogspace. They're largely the same ones I've been hearing for the last forty years... the ongoing attempts to falsely justify degeneration and degradation. And now children are at risk from them yet again.

Scott Says:
July 30th, 2006 at 23:07
Whatever it is that has people in so much of a tizzy over this, I have to say one thing: this is a prime example of how we as a society are constantly taken for fools. The fact that a normal all American underage girl has the ability to be topless on camera just blows our little minds right out the window, leaving the whole meaning of what REALLY might be trying to be passed along to people in the dark. I'm I the only one who sees how completly stupid this is? We're more concerned about the fact that she's topless rather than that in the movie, she plays a character that is sexually abused. We always get so uneasy thinking that children might have "naughty" body parts, but at the same time we are so concerned about someone finding out that children do have them and using them for their own personal gain. Don't get me wrong, I know there are a lot of sick people out ther who would do just what I mentioned, but in order to help the problem, we can't pretend that there isn't the means for it to happen. This, along with our holy immortalizing of celebrities makes the problem even worse. It's time to wake up and smell the coffee people. All 12 year old girl's have chests, even our innocent little Dakota. This fear to be open and this fear to talk to others about something we ALL have is a major phycalogical problem within all of us which does two things: makes people money and makes us none the wiser. I mean, who the hell invented bathing suit tops for 6 year olds? He must be laughing all the way to the bank. I hope that people walk away from this movie having learned something rather than shaking their heads and wondering "how could she do this?" Just take a look at the way we're acting now and maybe we'll learn something more than a hollywood picture could ever tell us.

Josh Says:
July 30th, 2006 at 23:12
So we're supposed to learn what from this movie? That little girls have naughty parts?

Thanks, but I don't think a 12-year-old girl needs to be traumatized for me to learn that.

Or are we supposed to learn that bad things happen to little kids?

Um... I have a televison, a radio, a newspaper, and I get the internets! We already know that too.

Sorry, this movie isn't teaching me anything, certainly nothing important enough to traumatize, exploit, and display a kid not old enough to make her own decisions.

The only thing this movie is teaching me is that there are a lot of sickos out there who will stop at nothing to justify their own sickness to others.

Steven Mark Pilling Says:
July 31st, 2006 at 13:23
Scott: Just what the hell are you talking about? Topless? We're not talking about baby pictures, here. We're talking about a child being used in a nude, sex-explicit scene; filmed for distribution to audiences. We're talking about the ramifications to children from this and the question of common decency in general. You're attempting to lower this to a purile arguement... which it certainly is not.

Ty Miller Says:
July 31st, 2006 at 21:40
Dakota Fanning became the best and fineness young actress at such an early age, she's greatest known for her sad emotions: the best whiner I’ve ever seen on the big screen. She's pretty much has covered every thing an actress would do, and now even a rap-nudity scene/s. The movie hounddog could ruin her career (maybe or maybe not), but will more then likely change the way people will look at her. Dakota's mother and agent has no right to force her into R rated scenes for the sake of an Oscar. At 12 years old she should be able to control what she wants to do with her career. For fanning's act in hounddog I say good luck, that hope she comes through with great success as a great actress as she is. But still this will be her first big downer for her greatest fans, and a first step towards a (could be) failing career. For shame.

Steven Mark Pilling Says:
August 2nd, 2006 at 12:18
I agree in principle, Ty. However, from what I've heard from a good source, part of the problem may be that she has TOO much say in her career. If it's true that she negociates her own movie deals while her mother waits outside in the anteroom, then it explains much. No child is equipped by nature or by law to handle such things. If her parents and agent are that passive, then God help her. On the other hand, if their judgement is that bad as well, then she's REALLY on the path to self-destruction.

Matt Says:
August 3rd, 2006 at 06:37
First off, I love Fannings films. She has prove far more adaptive to her roles than most adult acters. If there is any child capable of such a role, it is her. But, just because she can, doesn't mean she should.
I think Mark Pilling had it right when he explained that as a child, she still does not have the capasity to understand the emotional consequences that may come from acting such scenes.
In short, I feel that it is wrong to portray such acts on screen. Primarily, when the portrayal is being done by a child. Still, it does not qualify as child pornography: films, magazines, writings, photographs, or other materials of children that are sexually explicit and intended to cause sexual arousal.
I think we can all agree that is not the point of this film. In the end, I just hope her parents come to their senses and draw the line. It's up to them to tell her that she's going too far.

Vincent Says:
August 3rd, 2006 at 06:37
Child rape and molestation is a serious issue that EXISTS in our world whether we refuse to address it or not. The movie simply depicts a sad but true reality in our society. The purpose of the movie is to tell a story of many children who can't speak for themselves, not encourage child abuse. Therefore I'm glad theyr'e addressing the issue rather than ignoring it.

European Cosmopolitan Says:
August 5th, 2006 at 17:12
Hello? It's a movie, can't you tell the difference anymore?

Lot of people get raped everyday (for real), and you don't spend a second thinking about them. But whooo, it's a famous actress! We'll better all be concerned about it.

Movies are not real; however they may describe reality and they may create a sense of what's good, not so good, bad and really bad.

Just because Hollywood stopped to entertain you with stupid love and action movies you get nuts and say: "Oh, bad hollywood is showing us gays, rape scences and other crap I am not interested in!".
Take it as a chance. Learn from it. If this scene is well-made I guess Dakota may convice the one or the other pedofil that it's not good to do this do a child.

By the way: I would have gotten more afraid of aliens attacking the earth then a sex scene when I was twelve.

Yeahyeah, but what do we stupid Old-Europeans know... with our brothels, amsterdam and I-dont-know-what-else.
I know a lot of people from the states, and they all are cool, but some of them really freak out when some topics are on schedule... men, you really should go out some time and have a look what humans really do... (not you Vincent)

Sorry for my english, it's neither my mother- nor my second language.

J-lynn Says:
August 6th, 2006 at 07:59
why would u get a little guurl get raped??? thts just not ryte..tht is is soo fucked up...u should make it movie screen animated..tht is sooo SAD!!!!.....think off itt mann!

ONT. dood Says:
August 6th, 2006 at 07:59
this movie is screwed up:
holy crap this is totaly screwed up im only 11 so i seriusly dont wanna see this crap i mean holy heck what are you people thinking she's freaking 12 thats just disturbing who the heck could work in this movie, this is a seriusly crap movie Deborah kampmier can go to hell for all i care he has created one of the most screwed up movies ever and thank god its not going into theaters i agree with some of the comments on how this may resemble real life or any of that but for gods sake she's only 12 how could you do that too her its not legal to put a girl in a movie stark naked i think this should never go into theters and should never have been filmed
no further coments... for now:@

ONT. dood Says:
August 6th, 2006 at 07:59
i stand corected Deborah isnt the sickest person in the world robert is... :(

some girl Says:
August 6th, 2006 at 15:23
um mark piller and vincent are pretty much teh only people that make sense simulated or not this movie puts a 12 year old girl naked on screen she is creeping me out if she did in fact sigh this movie herself witch i dought even if she is 12 im 11 and i'd never do this movie even if a was an amazing actress like her but come on gurl your messing up big time, if it was'nt her decision then her parents are fucking up big time oh yeah and fuck all of you pedophiles that are going to see this movie she's a girl for gods sake your all fucking sick and i have one more thing to say to all pedophiles im not saying the people that are trying to justifie this movie are *all* pedophiles but mst of you are and another thing: fuck you you shit faced mother fuckers are you close to the top of a tall building why dont you jump off why dont you run into a knife ok so go fuck your mothers thats all for me to say yep bye bye

Jesus H Christ Says:
August 6th, 2006 at 19:13
Wow, I just read every single reply to this and I am just laughing so hard. Get over it people, you don't like it, don't see it. This was something her parents or she herself decided would happen. Nothing you say here will make a bit of difference. And while I agree that it's disgusting to have her do this movie, it's not going to stop her from doing it. I know I would never let my daughter do a movie like this, but hell, I'm not Mr or Mrs Fanning am I?

So all of you can shut the fuck up, get over it, and get on with life. Really, do you have so little of a life that you sit around posting up arguments about a 12-year-old girl's career?
I know that's what I'm doing right now, but hey, I don't have a life.

Brandon Says:
August 6th, 2006 at 21:14
the writers that created this movie are fuck up sickos...and the people on this that agree that this is ok to put a fucking 12 year old girl on a movie naked are also fuck up sickos just like the writer. ONT dood is typing now: holy shit i have no idea what the fuck to say if D.F ever reads this dont do this movie its not worth an oscar i dont agree that this movie should be put in the movies ever but if its D.F's decision then w.e but nobody sane will see it personaly none of my friends are going to see this shit! no offence to D.F she's a great actor, this movie is just horrible though none of us agree....(Quinn brandon J-lynn Luke Simon Gavin Lukas Allison gabreal adam emily, emily dakota legacy...notice legacy not fanning.....robert steacy gemma J.C cassie cherrity mark jessie ONT dood (me) keira taylor and the list contuinues but i dont have time to right down all the names i would take me weeks oh yah a shout out to and fucked up perves out there that actualy wanna see this movie FUCK YOU!!!! thats all brandon is typing now:Soo if you agree with us then good...your normal...but if you don't and you think it is ok then you are fucked in the head! ONT dood says: yeha and one more thing you may think we are old because we swear alot but you're wrongh were 12 im almost 12 tmmorows my birthday...oh yeah the piont D.F dont do this plz..yeah...... i think i've proved my point oh yeah mark pillings comments are the best read them he's got the idea. this movie is FUCKED UP!

Steven Mark Pilling Says:
August 6th, 2006 at 21:30
Okay. Here we go with the same, tired excuses again. Vincent gives us the famous "it'll raise awareness" bit. European Cosmo, naturally enough, is peddling the old "it's just a movie" and "we Europeans are more sophisticated than you" tripe. And, lastly, we have "Jesus" with the ancient rendition of "if you don't like it, don't see it".

First off: Depravity cannot be cured by more depravity, Vince. If it could, we'd have all been living in a crime-free society long since. In fact, since porn was legalized, sex crimes have gone right through the roof. You can't protect little girls by horribly degrading them on film for all to see.

Cosmo: It's not "just a movie". Real sets, real cameras, real actors and, God help us, a real little girl went into the making. If people in Europe think that's cool, then they obviously confuse sophistication with downright sickness. It's called decadency.

And you, "Jesus"...you're right about one thing- you have no life. Anyone who would laugh and say "forget it" to something like this has failed the great test of adulthood. The protection, nurturing and moral guidance of children is what we're FOR. If this film is allowed to go public, it will be an inspiration for pedophiles, a trauma for the children who WILL see it and an enablement for other perverse filmmakers to exploit other children like Dakota for profit. Then, of course, there's the issue of plain, common decency.

Maybe I can't make any difference. But, for the sake of children everywhere (Dakota included), I intend to try. No decent man could do less.

Vincent Says:
August 6th, 2006 at 21:33
Whoa whoa whoa.

You've got some good points there Steven Mark Piling, but don't equate LEGAL pornography featuring CONSENTING adults with ILLEGAL CHILD PORNOGRAPHY featuring underage CHILDREN who are legally considered unable to make those sorts of decisions for themselves.

HUGE difference.

Secondly, your "sex crimes have gotten worse since legalizing porn" stat is COMPLETELY made up and utterly false. Right wing religious nuts LOVE to peddle fake stats like that, but fact is they're just that... fake.

In fact, generally the more sexually repressed a society is, the more sex crimes become a problem. THAT is real.

But none of that has anything to do with this. This is about the exploitation of a CHILD not about consenting adults getting naked on film. The two are HUGE worlds apart. Let's not confuse the issue.

ONTdood (im 12 yey me) Says:
August 7th, 2006 at 19:03
sorry i typed a realy long message but it was earased so all im going to say is

im not a politition im not seeing this movie steven mark pilling is the only one who has this argument "however stupid it is" right and if i was getting into this he would be the guy to lead a campiege lol jk but he got the idea anyway (to anyone that thinks this aint changing anything) so what if were not making a difference at least we can tell you perves thats are deffending this that they should get a girlfriend and stop deffending a movie that has a girl partialy naked so you can see something that you wish you could get but are to much of a fucked up sicko to get a life

i personaly have a bit of a crush on Dakota fanning so i dont want her to do this fucked up movie how ever much it does in some cases resemble real life my dad is a phycoligest so i know that people get raped almost everyday but some of whta im talking about is the younger children who have no idea what sex is and can understand the concept learning about sex at a young age is corrupting trust me.

this movie resembles real life in some ways but that doesnt mean people dont know that and that this movie has to show nudity and sexual violance on a massive screen.

thats all for now oh and if jason reads this "seriusly stop trying to get Dakota's number you fucking stalker"

Cass Says:
August 8th, 2006 at 12:33
I dont think it's realy that big of a deal. The people who are lamenting her taking this role are probably the same people who let their 10 year old daughters go to the mall in shorts so short that their little buttcheeks are visible, or let them listen to rap which is as bad or worse than what Dakota is doing. Do we really have any room to be complaining about this? As a society, we have been letting children act like adults for quite some time now. Abercrombie and Fitch sold thong panties for 10 year olds a while back.

And do any of you actually think Dakota is still a virgin?? I would bet my next paycheck she isn't. Given the fact that her mom seems to be so cavalier about her sexuality and she is a part of the Hollywood scene, I would be shocked if the kid hasn't had sex already. I lost my virginity at 11. That's been almost 20 years ago and I wasn't in a Hollywood environment.

My point is, look at how we let kids grow up and act these days. You don't even have to try to access porn. Any 9 year old could access reams of pornography on the internet. We allow all this! We allow Planned Parenthood to have a website that tells kids it's ok to try anal sex(check out www.teenwire.com). We allow all this to go on, we let girls dress scantily (I saw a little girl that couldn't have been more than 10 wearing shorts that showed her buttcheeks and had the word 'HOTTIE' across her butt). So why are people so surprised and shocked when a movie comes along that has a sexually explicit scene containing a 12 year old?? Have we not seen this coming? een this coming? een this coming?

Steven Mark Pilling Says:
August 8th, 2006 at 14:57
Vincent: Sex crimes, especially those against children, HAVE mushroomed since pornography was legalized. Using more tired old "left wing nut" slogans like "consenting adults", "relegious nuts" and "sexually repressed society" aren't going to change that. There is no "HUGE difference" here, because a twelve year old child was depicted in a nude, sexually-charged scene on two, possibly three occasions. This is not confusing the issue. This IS the issue.

Yes, I am a Christian... and proud of it. My politics can also be described as right wing. I have no problem with that. But- when it comes to the issue of protecting children from sexual exploitation... this issue should transcend such barriers. What major faith in the world could possibly approve without violating it's own basic tendents? And: Any political movement that would defend such things is morally bankrupt and unworthy of public support.

Cass: Any parents who would let their children do the things that you describe are not fit parents for a goldfish, much less a human child. Don't your own sad childhood experiences tell you that? I can only hope to God that Dakota's physical innocence is still intact at the age of twelve! As to her emotional innocence after such an experience as this... well, Heaven help her.

ONTdood: Thanks for the kind words. You've got a better grip on this than all too many adults! I only wish that Dakota, for all her vaunted "precociousness", had had your simple wisdom. It might have saved her from the many personal troubles that she now has and faces in the future. And, yes: There are many adults like myself who are determined not to let this matter rest.

Biker B Says:
August 8th, 2006 at 15:45
I am rathered disturbed by this. This girl has the ability for great acting and to have her used in such a manner is very sick. I have been a fan of Dakota Fanning for quite a while. The Movie "Man on Fire" with Denzel Washington was similar in the aspect that the girl DF was acting as was kidnapped and things were done to her, but you never saw anything done to her. That's what makes good movie magic is having the bad stuff implied.

To actually have her go through a horrific act as rape and being exposed is unimaginable. This is one film I will not see of hers and hope to God that this is the last film DF does that involves something like this. If her mother wants her to win an Oscar DF can win one but I don't think she should have to go through something like this to get it. The MiniSeries "Taken" on Sci-Fi she did an excellent job protraying her character, she has talent and a charisma about her that I don't see in too many actresses.

I hope she turns away from roles like this in the future.

ONTdood (im still 12, same day...) Says:
August 9th, 2006 at 00:20
im only derecting this at the movie and cass...
|
Cass: wow dood you must have a bit of issue's conssidering you hade sex at the age of 11 i feal sorry for you, also 1: im damn sure Dakota is still a virgin unless in reality she was raped
2: yeah we have been acting like adults for years so what, none of us have had sex if you seriusly think we have then your just trying to make it seem like your not the only one...
3:um im not sure if you noticed but you kinda addmited to looking at a girlz ass there +o(

the movie: still freaking weirdl, steven mark has still made the most powerful and true argument, biker b has an excellent point but im too tired to say what i want oh yeah and josh i my bro laughed at the harry potter thing

P.S my last two postings were the only one's that i meant to send

Cass Says:
August 9th, 2006 at 00:21
Steven Mark Pilling: I'm not saying parents should let their kids run around with 'hottie' plastered on their butts, but they do. I just dont think people should be surprised by this role when parents let kids out in public half naked in skimpy clothes that have sex appeal.

I dont think my childhood was bad. My mom did her best, i was just a wild child! She worked a lot of hours and that left me on my own to do a lot of stuff I shouldn't have been doing- like sex. My point was that even when I was 11 I was interested in bad things. If anything, it's worse 17 years later.

Motavation Says:
August 9th, 2006 at 20:44
i think the motives are all wrong. doing this movie only to get an oscar!? what is that about. if she gets it, she'll be forty and her kids will ask her what did she do to get the oscar, what would she say? is her parents trying to life the life they will never have through her? brainwashed her into taking the role? hopefully this won't dampen the career, cause the movies that get oscars suck anyway.
it seems that they only want to do this movie for the oscar. me personally would hate to get my first oscar doing something i would hate or regret. i can picture how they got the guy to do brokeback moutain.

///hollywood Office///
Agent: hey jake do you want an oscar?
Jake: yeah, what do i have to do?
Agent: Fu** a guy in a movie.
Jake: OK!!!!

Steven Mark Pilling Says:
August 10th, 2006 at 14:12
Dear Cass: I didn't think that you were trying to portray your childhood as normal or encouraging it for others. That it did happen to you and happens to others isn't always symptomatic of poor parenting. It is often, however, a result of the influences of other kids and the popular culture that they all are exposed to from many different sources. At the center of this "culture" lurks Hollywood. What they do (and get away with) soon translates into music, magazines, television and cyberspace. That's why efforts like "Hounddog" are so dangerous. Kids will see it or hear about it and be tempted to emulate it. After all, "sweet little Dakota" did it, so how bad can it be?

ONTdood/Actingdood Says:
August 10th, 2006 at 23:07
Dag yo i dont know were to start luckily i dont have to tell some perve off right now.:p

ok well Dakoat fanning inspired me to act and she realy screwed me over by doing this movie
i must say her mom/and or her have realy fucked over her fans now havsnt she/or her mom.

steven mark pilling: true on every word ecpiecily the imatation part. kids will probly try to copy this movie if they hear of it. a kid (12) named mike tryed it at shcool when he heard of it living proof your right this movie is going to be corrupting to kids across canada and da U.S.

you'd think the government wouldnt allow it!:p this movie is fucked upppp

Darla Says:
August 11th, 2006 at 08:30
I don't see why you guys are arguing about this. Yes, she is doing a movie with SIMULATED rape. Keyword: SIMULATED. Yeah, she's 12-years-old and topless on screen, but obviously she and her parents are okay with it because it's already been filmed. Nothing that you guys post here will make any bit of difference. She's never going to see this and even if she does, it's already been done. If you really have such an issue with it, please, just don't see it.

And as Steven Mark Pilling says to "Jesus": Anyone who would laugh and say "forget it" to something like this has failed the great test of adulthood. The protection, nurturing and moral guidance of children is what we're FOR. If this film is allowed to go public, it will be an inspiration for pedophiles, a trauma for the children who WILL see it and an enablement for other perverse filmmakers to exploit other children like Dakota for profit.

First off, I'm sure Dakota knows what rape is, so how can you protect her from something she already knows about. A three-year-old know what rape is! Yeah, that was an exaggeration to point out how mature the kids in our society are these days.

Second, you say it's an inspiration for pedophiles. Well, they see the movie, look at child porn or something on the internet, and voila! They've gotten themselves into jail! See this movie has it's good things, too.

Sara Says:
August 12th, 2006 at 15:07
You, northamerican people think you are so developed, but mentally you are so retarded!!!
IT´S A MOVIE!!

Sara Says:
August 12th, 2006 at 15:07
I´m very happy for Dakota, she´s a great actress and she´s 12, I think she is old enough to understand what the movie is about!! And if she can win an Oscar for it, why not?? She deservs it!!
I don´t belive her parents pushed her to do this movie, obviusly Dakota agreed on doing it!!
She has done lot of movies an she knows how all this works and besides there are a lot of profesionals who surley helped her to understant better the story of this movie

Joshua Enos Says:
August 13th, 2006 at 10:57
Josh this issue just tops the tip of the iceberg. Read this article; http://www.geocities.com/piutywrec/ and tell me what you think. This problem is more pervasive than you think.

Darla Says:
August 13th, 2006 at 22:53
Shut up, Sara. Us "North American" people are smarter than you could ever dream about being! Without us you wouldn't even be on the computer right now, so you can shut up.

Secondly, Dakota Fanning definetly doesn't deserve to win an Oscar. She's a terrible actress.

Joshua Enos Says:
August 14th, 2006 at 00:22
Darla Dakota Fanning is an excellent actress. She's adorably cute and talented at the same time; that's why I don't want for her to blow it by making movies about getting naked and f-ucking at the tender age of twelve.

Darla Says:
August 14th, 2006 at 22:23
We each have our own opinions, Joshua enos, and mine happens to be that I don't like her acting. Even if she does this movie, it won't hurt her career cause she blew it a long time.

Shaunna Says:
August 15th, 2006 at 16:13
I'm sure the purpose of this movie is to increase the awareness of Rape in minors. Everyone just wants to ignore it, pretend it doesn't happen. Well it does. Would be nice if maybe they took some of the profits from the movie to donate to Child Rape Victims.

Joshua Enos Says:
August 16th, 2006 at 06:33
Shaunna I don't think that the issue is about whether or not it's appropriate to bring about the issue of child rape in the mainstream media. The issue is about the fact that it isn't appropriate for non-consenting under-aged Dakota Fanning to get naked and f-ck for a scene in a movie. Regardless as to how those scenes are shown it doesn't change the fact that an underaged actor was made to humiliate herself in front of the whole country.

MyOwnWords Says:
August 16th, 2006 at 06:33
Nudity isn't quite as sickening as some people make it out to be, but neither is sex. It's a completely natural part of life. What we have in this case is a young female that has likely already developed many of her physical sexual impulses (yep, that's right) pretending like she's having undesired sex with a (older?) man.

I'm sorry to inform the lot of you, but your young daughters are likely already doing nasty things with your neighbor's kids. Maybe this upsets you, but it's just life. You can either accept it, pretend it doesn't happen, or lock them up.

While I doubt acting out a rape scene is going to be harmful to her at her age, I agree that the nudity is wrong in a sense. She's partially mature, but still very young. I don't even want people to see my naked baby pictures. I would hate to imagine how it would have been to be exposed to millions at the age of 12. She might regret the day for the rest of her life. And those around her that make these decisions for her are responsible.

eric Says:
August 16th, 2006 at 20:13
A. this sounds like a very sick joke about raping a 12 year old little girl.
B. it is not illegal for a minor to be nude in film, Thora Birch was only 17 in AMERICAN BEAUTY, Brook Shields Was only 11 or 12 in PRETTY BABY, and that is as close to kidde porn as you can get without actually crossing the line, as far as this new film is concerened, I will probably not see it because it really does not interest me as I am a Milla Jovovich fan, and by the way, she was nude at 15 in RETURN TO THE BLUE LAGOON, and as far as the aurthors statement that anyone who goes to the movie should be arrested for viewing child pornography, he should read up on the law, unfortunatley, the courts have ruled that it is not illegal to view kidde porn, but it is illegal to possess it, so if the film is to be labeled kidde porn, then the theater owners and employees would be the ones arrested, because they are the ones who actually possess it.

Steven Mark Pilling Says:
August 18th, 2006 at 06:36
Darla: Consider what an actor (or child actress) MUST do to simulate something like this. I keep trying to pound this into peoples' heads. What happened to Dakota on that set in the process of filming is a key question.

Sure, she knows what rape is- NOW. She can't help but know, after the experience of acting out a scene of violent child molestation... among a number of other sexually-charged scenes. The point is this: SHE'S TWELVE YEARS OLD. That's NOT mature.

Yes, children are exposed to sexuality (often in it's worst facets, like this) earlier than ever. That doesn't make it right. That doesn't make them "mature". In fact, it does just the opposite by exposing them to a twisted view of adulthood before they're mentally capable of evaluating what they see.

Sara: Please keep your Euro-elitism to yourself. If it wasn't for our "mental retardation", you'd probably be in a Siberian labor camp right now.

Shauna: Please don't start up again on the old "it'll increase awareness" arguement. Degeneracy only gives rise to more degeneracy. If it could cure it, it'd be gone long since.

MyOwnWords: Sex is not natural for children. If you think different, then you need to join NAMBLA.

Joshua Enos Says:
August 19th, 2006 at 08:51
Now everybody calm down; there is nothing wrong with cute little twelve year-old girls making movies about getting naked and fucking talking about; "Show me your penis Daddy."

Joshua Enos Says:
August 21st, 2006 at 19:55
How come nobody is posting?

Garry Says:
August 24th, 2006 at 12:30
Didn't her daddy have anything to say about this or did he just let himself get talked into it too?

Garry Peebles Says:
August 24th, 2006 at 12:30
I've never heard anything about what her daddy said about all this...Surely, he was allowed to make some comment. He must have just let himself get talked into it too.

Sherri Says:
August 27th, 2006 at 16:34
I was raped at the age of 6. How dare they put this little girl through this! She will be mentally scarred for life. She will have memories of it, and to her, it will be almost as if the actual thing had happened. This makes me sick. Anyone who goes to see it needs serious mental help. It's not normal to want to watch a 12 year old get raped. In fact, this movie HAS broken a law. It's called "indecent contact with a minor". Why the heck isn't someone doing something about it?

Sherry Mabry Says:
August 27th, 2006 at 22:25
OMG, I was raped too! COOL!!

Joshua Enos Says:
August 28th, 2006 at 00:11
If Joe Blow the fifth grade teacher decided to put on a play about getting naked and f-cking involving his fifth grade students, I can assure you that the police would have an extremely difficult time getting him from the front door of the school house to the police car without everybody in town trying to string him up by the nearest flagpole.

Steven Mark Pilling Says:
September 10th, 2006 at 22:45
Apparently, my last commentary got lost somehow. Sherry and Sherri: God bless you both. You've been through the great nightmare and survived it. Better than any, you can realize how no positive purpose can be served by the scenarios in "Hounddog" being made public. There's no high purpose being pursued by those who could conceive, enact and market something this degenerate. It's about money through depravity. Another word for this is pornography.

Steven Mark Pilling Says:
September 18th, 2006 at 17:24
Dear Garry: Sorry I skipped over your remarks. Actually, you raise one of the more puzzling aspects of this whole sorry affair; the role- before, then and after the fact- of Steve Fanning. To this date, he is the only member of the family who is almost completely anonymous. Joy Fanning, her sister Jill and their parents have all been with Dakota and Elle in public and on set. While I know that the father was on the set of "War of the Worlds" (at least briefly), nothing more has been said since. Of them all, I've never seen a quote from him. I've never even seen at picture! What part he plays (if any!) in the careers of his children is a complete unknown! That's very strange. Possibly, the answer could be of significance in the mystery of why his wife suddenly became Dakota's hands-on manager (after years of passivity) and why she did, with apparent consciencelessness, sell her trusting little daughter into the hands of virtual pornographers.

Garry Peebles Says:
September 19th, 2006 at 14:55
When he watches Hound Dog I hope that Dakota' daddy is ashamed of himself when he sees her pretty much naked. It was his job to protect her and he didn't take care of it. As for Dakota, I think she needs somebody's prayers to protect her because she may be a famous movie star but she is also still just a kid. I think that she has some tough days ahead.

Steven Mark Pilling Says:
September 19th, 2006 at 23:57
Can't argue with that, Garry.

ONTdood Says:
September 30th, 2006 at 20:28
Hi back and with a whole new concept to this, has neone considered the fact that she might need to do this however disgusting and repulsive it is? Actors have tough jobs finding movies concidering that there are alot of them
Dakota might be in need of a new movie and this one could be the only one that came up. Dont get me wrong she is a good actress but every star no matter how big the star is can still have trouble finding jobs, its not a very strong theory but im just throwing it out there.

I still think this movie will be a disastor, Garry Peebles is rigth, I hope that her dad is disturbed

PS. whatever happned to that series on the T.V with Dakota

Steven Mark Pilling Says:
October 1st, 2006 at 20:44
Dear ONTdood: I'm afraid I can't go with that one. In fact, just recently and on good authority, I learned that she apparently prepared for NINE MONTHS for her role in "Hounddog", forsaking all other offers in the meantime. This supposedly included a weekly session with a "movement coach"! Make what you will of that. I'm not saying it's true. I hope it's not. Still, it's very disturbing to hear. Like you, I don't want to believe bad of this kid. However, the possibility that she's been corrupted has to be faced. Sorry I couldn't give you better news. Take care.

Garry Peebles Says:
October 4th, 2006 at 00:54
..If Dakota put her life on hold for almost a year just to prepare for this film, she obviously sold herself out completely to the idea that it's going to get her an oscar. It's going to be a big letdown for her if she doesn't. She's going to be a torn up little girl. the only people who are going to win are the ones who have invested in the dvd's that are going to be sold because they will probably sell millions of them. I hate to put it this way but I think that all of these dvd's are going to show her completely bare because the people developing the dvds know that for what they are going to cost, these guys are going to expect to see her that way. They're not running up their credit card bills to see her in a body suit. They're going to want the real thing....Poor
Dakota....

Garry Peebles Says:
October 5th, 2006 at 22:50
My final word on Dakota....I don't think that anybody should crucify her for whatever she did or didn't do or wore or didn't wear in Hounddog. She's only human and she's still just a kid. She may have been placed on too high a pedestal by some of her fans and she was bound to fall off sooner or later. She should also be remembered for the good things she's done and the good causes she's supported off stage. You don't quit loving your kids just because they don't always meet your expectations and you shouldn't do that to Dakota either.

Steven Mark Pilling Says:
October 11th, 2006 at 13:11
It looks like my last message got lost AGAIN!

Dear Garry:

I was just going to say that it's not a matter of Dakota on a pedestal. What happened was that she was thrown off her feet and dragged face first through the gutter. And this was done to her by her own agent and mother!

I have no doubt she met THEIR expectations in her performance. Little girls naturally want to please the adults they trust for guidance. However, when those adults are willing to prostitute them on film, for all the world to see and for financial gain, then someone has to step in. It's THEIR love and motivations that are at question.

I'm sure many kids will never stop loving Dakota, despite this terrible film. It's hard not to love someone like her, even from a distance. I'm sure that most kids think of her as a good friend that they just don't see too often!

What they will see of her now, though, both on and off the screen, is liable to be an entirely different person from the one they knew before. I've already seen it. In the Los Angeles airport, she's photographed with her father picking up her luggage. She sees the cameraman and a look of terrible fear registers in her face. At her favorite bowling alley, she flees in tears from the loud, profane cat-calls of some patrons... a place where she had always been warmly welcomed before. This is the child who was once universally loved and never hesitated to talk to people in public or smile for a camera. All is changed already.

And "Hounddog" hasn't even been announced for release, yet. The virtual news blackout on the major media sources continues, but the word still passes along. When or if it IS released, then the news will have to be made public on major sources. They'll try to soft-peddle it, naturally, but they're going to find it difficult. Murder by snake- child molestation- interchild sexplay- behind the scenes stories- parental exploitation. Let them try!!

But poor little Dakota will catch the lion's share of the reviewers' abuse. She's the most visible target and, because of her once clean reputation, the most vulnerable. God help her. She's going to be in for a tough time. And, like I've said, the fallout is already happening.

Garry Peebles Says:
October 11th, 2006 at 22:02
if that's what Hollywood does to you then perhaps Dakota would have been better off living her life back in Georgia as just another cute little girl. I still think that her daddy bears the big responsibillty. If he had had any backbone, he surely could have stopped Hounddog when he saw what it was going to be, or even better, before it even started. One also wonders if some of her problems didn't begin with the time she spent with Tom Cruise in War of the Worlds. Some of those photos with him show them much too close for a young girl and a grown man.

Steven Mark Pilling Says:
October 17th, 2006 at 18:15
I'm certainly having trouble making comments on this site! Let's see if this sticks!

Dear Garry:

It don't think Tom Cruise can be blamed for this one! Other things, perhaps, but probably not this! I hope not, anyway.

Your remark about her father bearing responsibility, however, is right on the mark. As the head of his household, the last word on family affairs should have been his. Yet, he is rarely even seen and never mentioned in the context of his daughters' careers. Even THEY never speak of him in public except when prompted. In the wake of "Hounddog" and what I have learned since, this curious fact strikes me as being, perhaps, a major factor as to why Dakota's career took the radical shift that it did; in conjunction with the quiet termination of David Jones as her manager early this year.

I'm also in agreement with you on your first point. I've made it before, myself. Indeed, with all things considered, it WOULD have been better for her- for them all- if she'd just stayed home in Conyers and been raised in a normal environment. She'd probably been happier in the long run!

Garry Peebles Says:
October 18th, 2006 at 00:32
Sorry...but I saw something else which makes believe that those attempting to corrupt Dakota have pretty well completed their job. It's those clothing ads which will appear in a national magazine soon. She is fully clothed in them but from the look on her face, the way she is standing and the way that the clothes are slouched (sp) on her, she looks like a girl who no longer cares about what influence she might have on other kids, especially girls her age and younger. I think she is a hollywood tragedy in the making.....

Steven Mark Pilling Says:
October 18th, 2006 at 13:40
Dear Garry: Are you referring to that "Gap" ad?

garry Peebles Says:
October 19th, 2006 at 09:03
yes...but I hope I was wrong considering that it's just ad copy...Dakota has to still care about those kids who look up to her..

Steven Mark Pilling Says:
October 20th, 2006 at 11:57
Dear Garry: From what I see, that peer-aged fan base of her's is rapidly becoming history. If "Hounddog" is released (tentatively in late November), then she'll probably have to kiss them good-bye as a serious presence. Sad, but true. BTW: I think that "Gap" photo makes her look like a street corner tramp! But, then again, maybe it's part of her new image. I wonder what else her handlers have planned?

Edwin O. Perez Says:
October 30th, 2006 at 09:31
just do what you think is right

floyd _phoenix Says:
November 14th, 2006 at 20:42
i think this movie would be a great challenge for not only the actress but also for the veiwers as well. because this is something that shood be carefully thought about as well as viewed and should not appear in the future in any case.

Steven Mark Pilling Says:
November 16th, 2006 at 00:06
If anyone is curious as to the basis of the case against "Hounddog", let me recommend to you these two sites for clarification:

1. "A Minor Consideration" (minorcon.org): This is the site of Paul Petersen's group. As a former child star, he has empathy with the problems of other ones; past and present. He's also a tireless advocate of child protection with a unique Hollywood-based perspective. Read his three part essay on "Hounddog", along with articles by guest columnists, for an enlightening look at this situation and what it portends.

2. "Demand Justice For Child Sexual Exploitation in Films" (thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/467880755): Robert Lacey is a Christian advocate from Spring Lake, North Carolina, a suburb of Fayetteville (where Cindy Osbrink stayed during the film's production). He has put together a moral and legal basis of facts so as to properly judge this film's merits. His provided links are likewise enlightening. Please consider signing his online petition that is to be forwarded to the State Attorney General.

These two websites probably, en totem, best represent our viewpoint in opposing this film. Remember; we are not against Dakota. We believe that she and the other two children on the set of "Hounddog" were immorally and illegally exploited in a sexual manner by heartless, profiteering adults. We also believe that, by using the most popular child in the country in such a manner, they have likewise placed all other children in peril as well. It's called the "sexualization of children" and it's been slowly growing for years in the popular culture. We fear that "Hounddog", if unchallenged, could represent a giant step toward a terrible goal... the mainstream acceptance of child pornography.

Garry Peebles Says:
November 17th, 2006 at 14:08
...I don't think that there is much that you can do for Dakota now. She is under the control of those around her who have decided in which direction they want her life and career to go and she probably couldn't change that if she wanted to. She probably just does and says what they tell her to. If she is still alive in five or 10 years she may look at this experience differently but not now. All anyone could do for her and Elle is pray for them. As for Elle, she will be feataured on an episode of Law and Order Tuesday night. according to the preview, its a dark episode about a little girl in trouble...kind of ironic or maybe not....

Steven Mark Pilling Says:
November 18th, 2006 at 13:38
Dear Garry:

If anything can be done for her, it'll only happen if those who exploited her are brought to justice. If left in their unloving care and if "Hounddog" is not opposed (at least in the court of public opinion) then I'd hate to speculate on the kind of adult she'll become. Think Tara Reid... to the third power! If history is any guide, "Hounddog" will color her life, professionally and psychologically, from now on. When you think of all the great potential she had for good, too...! That's a tragic waste in itself.

And remember, the same people who control her life control Elle also. She's only eight years old and has already been in at least two "R" rated movies, including "Babel". What do they planned for HER down the road? Or Cody Hanford and Isabelle Furhman (both 9)? Or, for that matter, every other child actor in Hollywood?... because "Hounddog" stands to impact their career options, too.

Prayers are definitely in order. So is action on their behalf.

Thanks for signing the petition! Best wishes.

Russell Nash Says:
November 22nd, 2006 at 14:30
Gross.

This is only further proof that just because you CAN have children doesn't mean you should be ALLOWED to have children.

This planet sucks.

Steven Mark Pilling Says:
November 25th, 2006 at 11:50
I hear you, Russell. It's an unfortunate fact of nature that we can't choose our relatives. It's also a fact of Hollywood that celebrity parents or the parents OF celebrities are usually those of the worst order. If they're not that way when they come to Tinseltown, they rapidly adjust! Likely enough, that's the sad story of the Fannings.

Garry Peebles Says:
November 27th, 2006 at 10:00
I would hope that when Dakota's daddy sees her in this movie, if he hasn't already, it will be a wake up call and cause him to hang his head a little bit. That's the only possibility that I see...

Steven Mark Pilling Says:
November 27th, 2006 at 20:39
That's true, Garry... but it's going to take more than that on his part. Especially at this late date.

Taking Dakota to a child psychologist would be the first step. There's no telling how much post-traumatic stress she suffered in the making of that film. She may appear normal now and may continue that way for a while. These things, however, are deep-seated; particularly with children. One stressful situation more, at any time or at any level, can result in a wild scene of misbehavior. These things happen all the time. The longer it goes untreated, the worse the result is liable to be. There is no way that any child could remain unaffected by those sickening scenes that she filmed.

The next thing for him to do is fire her agent. Now. None of this could have happened if she hadn't been the driving force. That the Fanning parents acquiesced to whatever arguments that Cindy Osbrink presented is to their undying shame. They can't take it back... but they can remove that source of corruption for the sake of whatever future their child may have.

Lastly; it must be the hard, but necessary duty of Steve Fanning to appear on a public forum and tell all. Without prevarication and regardless of personal consequences. It's the only hope Dakota has for redemption in the eyes of her public. As her father, as the head of his household and as the one with whom the ultimate blame must rest; this he must do.

He owes it to his daughter and to all those millions of kids around the world who loved her.

garry Peebles Says:
November 27th, 2006 at 22:58
unfortunately, it's probably not likely that Steve Fanning is ever going to actually do any of those things. I hope that Dakota's 'wild scene of misbehavior' never happens but if it does, I hope i'm not anywhere close enough around to read about any of it. I just don't want to read anything about it.

billy Says:
November 28th, 2006 at 20:19
I THINK YOU ALL THAT DON'T WANT THIS FILM TO MAKE IT ARE JELOUS AND WANT TO BE DAKOTA FANNING MAKING ALL THAT MONEY AND WANT TO BE AN ACTRESS BUT NEVER WILL I THINK THIS MOVIE WILL BE GREAT AND CAN'T WAIT TO SEE IT...... GOOD JOB DAKOTA

Steven Mark Pilling Says:
November 29th, 2006 at 02:39
Billy:

You're making a fool out of yourself. Some of us just care about kids as kids... not as celebrities. We don't want to see them used and abused for the profit of others. We don't want to see the kids who watch their films being corrupted and degraded themselves through the experience. And, above all, we don't want to see child pornography legitimized through the once radiant name of Dakota Fanning.

Please check my comments of November 16 and check out the referenced websites. Also: Check "bluelineradio.com" and click "blogsite". You may begin to see why this was not a "good job".

P.S. It's spelled "jealous".

Garry Peebles Says:
December 12th, 2006 at 16:02
Steve...I noticed that Dakota will be on Leno, tomrrow, Wednesday, night. This would apear to be her toughest obstacle yet, Do you think he will asked her any half-way tough or direct questions and how do you think she will react to them? Also I've notced that Dakota has or will have made just about all of the major talk shows except for Letterman during the past few weeks. Do her handlers not trust Letterman?

Jen Says:
December 14th, 2006 at 00:32
My daughter, 8 1/2, looks so much like Dakota Fanning that we'll be out shopping and we'll hear people saying it, and we'll know who they're talking about! (The other day I stopped one and asked, "Were you speaking about Dakota Fanning a moment ago?" She said, "Yes! I said [my daughter] looks so much like her!"
Of course, it would be fun having her making million dollar movies, let alone be such a warm-smiled, smart, talented girl! Obviously, anybody would be proud of her.
As many have said, however, subjecting a child to such torture -- real or imagined -- is intolerable. There have been many movies where what happened is INSINUATED, but not a thing SHOWN. Now, why couldn't they do that? Perhaps have the mother (or whoever the child abuser was?) yell at her, show NOTHING on screen, and have Dakota scream? And as for underwear-clad 11 year old, would it not have sufficed to have her holding on to a blanket, where she maintains her modesty, and maybe some fake bruises? These, at least, would not bound her to such unspeakable acts.
If we can all see this, WHY can't those surrounding the movie see it, too?
EVERYBODY HERE AGREES that she's a great actress; her acting isn't in question; her safety, however, is.

Steven Mark Pilling Says:
December 17th, 2006 at 21:50
Dear Jen: You say this because you are a loving, responsible mother who cares about children and has a firm, healthy sense of right and wrong. Obviously, you wouldn't make a good Hollywood mom! There are good ones, mind you, but they're usually the ones that understand the business from prior personal experience and know where the pitfalls lie. They are also the ones least likely to forget that their daughter/actress is "daughter" first and foremost, with "actress" coming in a distant second. "Hounddog" couldn't have happened without parents who had come to see their child primarily as a source of income to be perpetuated at any cost... to her.

Steven Mark Pilling Says:
December 17th, 2006 at 21:51
Dear Gary:

I'm sorry I missed your post before the Leno show. Others asked me that question, too. He didn't, of course. Nor did I think he would. She's been there too many times and he likes her too much to embarass her.

In fact, on only one TV promo so far was there so much as a "what's coming up next?" question (Good Morning America, 04DEC06). Her answer was the same one she's been given by her handlers and has been used at least once before; a passing reference to "a movie with Robin Wright Penn".

You'll find that on several recent (and tightly controlled) magazine interviews, she's at last starting to make reference, usually in a few formulated sentences, to what's now called "The Untitled Dakota Fanning Project". She has to say something, of course, with that film slated to premiere at the Sundance Film Festival in late January. Yet, she has to keep it understated so it won't attract adverse attention now with "Charlotte's Web" out in theaters.

However, in the December 10th "Time" magazine piece ("10 Questions For Dakota Fanning), they were obviously surprised by a question that directly addressed both "Hounddog" and "sexual abuse"! Her response was with a soliloquy of almost every talking point she'd been give. That way, she neatly dodged the question! The only other interview she's given since was with the normally ultra-safe "Vanity Fair" magazine. This time, though, the reporter was specifically told that "she will not entertain any questions" about "Hounddog".

As to Letterman... who knows? The handlers blundered on the "Time" interview and probably "GMA". She made a personal image mistake on "Oprah" on November 28th (see the message boards!) Now the questions on "Houndog" are starting to upsurge again. Even Regis Philbin is said to have made a pointed remark about it the day after Dakota was on his show! I guess he got the word late! Unless her handlers are extra sure of the questions, now, she won't be going anywhere. Count on it.

garry Peebles Says:
December 18th, 2006 at 14:24
...It appears to me that Deborah K. herself made a slip or a blunder in her recent interview in Preimer (sp) magazine when she said that one of the stories to be told in Hounddog was about 'the power of female sexuality.' If I were Dakota's handlers I would be uncomfortable with that remark. I had gotten the impression that their main and only story in the movie was how lewellen managed to overcome the obstacles in her life, mostly by singing Elvis.

Steve Says:
December 20th, 2006 at 16:48
Dear Garry: Thanks for the tip. I haven't seen the magazine, yet; only a few random quotes. Boy, after the blunder that Dakota's publicist made with the "Time" magazine interview, this was the last thing they needed. Especially since this comes from the mouth of the "creator" herself, just recently emerged from the shadows! I'm going to make a point of getting that magazine first chance I get. Thanks again.

GA Says:
December 22nd, 2006 at 01:48
it's just nudity - what's the big deal?

Steven Mark Pilling Says:
December 26th, 2006 at 11:18
Dear GA: We're talking about a twelve year old girl having sex enacted upon her by adult actors on a film set. We're talking about something so sick and twisted that no one, beyond the protection of Hollywood interests, could have tried it without seriously risking jail. We're talking about the traumatization of child actors and the endangerment of children everywhere as a result of it all. THAT'S the big deal.

Lewellen Says:
December 26th, 2006 at 21:25
“Exactly how I was going to film the rape scene was articulated quite specifically in the script, and her mother, her agent, and her teacher/child welfare worker were all present for the filming of the scene, which was carried out exactly as we discussed it. There was so much I had to hide [during filming]. I had to hide the fact that there is not a boy on top of this girl having sex. One of the choices I made as a director is, I shot her face. I didn’t shoot flesh against flesh, his leg touching her leg; I shot her face because I wanted to capture a soul going through this experience, not a body. The assumption that [Dakota] was violated in order to give this performance denies her talent.”

Contution Says:
December 28th, 2006 at 11:13
Kiera Knightly did some stuff like this when she was younger I thought, and Michelle Phifer did a nude/sex scene when she was a really young actress too right? ...and she won an Oscar for it and that was back in the time where this was even MORE taboo. You all just want to hold onto that cute little girl that you know from other films... she actually WANTED to do the roll. She isnt stupid. Shes a very intelligent young lady and I dont think she would just do something like this if it were distasteful and wasnt going to be important to the story.

I mean granted this "type" of movie really isnt my thing anyway and I'll probably forget all about it when it hits theaters, but im not completely grossed out by it. Im SURE ive seen worse(than this will be) from indy films already.

Steven Mark Pilling Says:
December 28th, 2006 at 13:48
Dear "Lewellen":

You quote directly from Deborah Kampmeier in her recent interview in January's "Premiere" magazine. Now... just what did you expect her to say? "I'm a cheap, sleazy filmmaker with an historical obsession with child sex and degeneracy in all it's various forms."?! What she did was use a lot of elitist Hollywood gibberish, spiked with subtle inaccuracies, to deflect the ongoing public outrage at her activities.

The "child welfare worker"- who wasn't. "There was so much I had to hide"- but in the massive re-editing that followed, not during the filming itself. "I didn't shoot flesh against flesh"- in spite of eyewitness accounts and the words of her own screenplay that says quite the opposite. "I wanted to capture her soul"- an age-old tenet of "art films" is to talk around the fact that the movie was about sex and degeneracy... and nothing else. "Denies her talent"- Translation: The little tramp did it willingly... so don't blame me!

Good God, Lewellen, how can you defend this kind of depravity? As one of the technicians said, " I think a lot of people on set were wondering how they'd feel if it was their daughter acting that role." Well, I DID ask myself that. That's why I'm here. Maybe you should consider it along those lines yourself.

garry Peebles Says:
December 29th, 2006 at 18:34
I guess the one, main thing I've never understoon about Dakota and Hounddog is what this movie is supposed to do for her career. Before Hounddog, she was cranking out big budget movies with people like Denzel, Dinero (sp) and Tom Cruise.
Since she began 'saving' herself for Hounddog, that's the only movie she's actually made that I've heard about outside of being a voice in animated movie that's supposed to be out in a couple of years.
I know that Hounddog was and is supposed to get Dakota her first Oscar but whoever made the decision had to figure that that was a long shot at best.
Lately, she seems to be more of a model than an actress. I'm sure she's a very highly paid model but it still can't be the same as being an actress.
When Charlotte's Web came out it was her first new movie in over a year and depending on when Houndog actually comes out in something besides a film festival and any other movie she maikes, it appears to me that it's going to be awhile before we see her in another movie.
I guess all of this is to say that I don't see how Hounddog has helped her career. It looks to me as if it's slowed it to a crawl.
As for her personally, everytime I see that beautiful, georgous, wonderful smile in a photo or on a talk show, I wonder what's going on behind it. They's gotta be something besides the usual lines she's saying.

Mickey Says:
December 30th, 2006 at 17:30
omg steve. ur everywhere! lol. ok peeps. search up "dakota fanning steve mark pilling" and the results will be like 50000000000000000000

Steve Says:
December 31st, 2006 at 17:49
Dear Gary:

That's why no one could believe it when the story came out about the true nature of "Hounddog". Dakota did one other pay-to-scale indie movie last year. It was a brief episode with Meryl Street and, while somewhat morbid (she's a graveside ghost!) it was otherwise unobjectionable.

"Hounddog" was apparently supposed to be Dakota's ticket to adult roles. She must have seen it (or had it sold to her!) as following in the footsteps of Jodie Foster, her film idol. What they didn't tell her, though, was that Miss Foster's role in "Taxi Driver" never called on her to directly enact sex with adult actors. They also, I'm sure, neglected to inform her about the emotional problems and murderous stalkers that resulted from that vile motion picture. (continued)

Steve Says:
January 1st, 2007 at 09:54
Fifty quintillion times?! Are you sure, Mickey? Wow! No wonder I've been waking up tired recently. I must have been online in my sleep!

Dear Garry, et al: Let me introduce you to Mickey, the gadfly of the Fanning sites! She's a sweet kid, but she definitely has a screw loose. Indulge her... but don't buy anything!!

Just kidding!! Happy New Year to all!

Steve Says:
January 1st, 2007 at 09:54
(continued)
Somebody wanted to keep drawing their 10% fee past Dakota's minorcy and were prepared to trash her good name and condemn her to trashy film roles from now on in the process. They were also prepared to pose her in trashy ad photos for more in the till.

It may be "sheer co-incidence", but the two major activities of the Osbrink Talkent Agency are... child actors and fashion models! Now how'd that happen?! Could it be that Cindy Osbrink is a sly, manipulative and utterly amoral cretin who would sell her little star client down the proverbial river in hopes of keeping the gravy train on-track... in spite of what it would likely do to the physical and moral safety of a growing child? Could her attitude be, "Well, if this fails, there's still another Fanning (Elle) where she came from."?

How could I think of such a thing? Trashy of me...

Steven Mark Pillking Says:
January 2nd, 2007 at 15:54
Sorry for the typos! I meant "Osbrink Talent Agency" and I somehow got the posts misaligned! Best wishes to all on the new year.

monika Says:
January 2nd, 2007 at 23:04
I read this and it repulsed me. As a victim of childhood sexual abuse this makes me want to vomit. The mother of this child should be ASHAMED. Her love of money is trumping what is right for her daughter. It is true that Hollyweird is getting more and more repulsive, then they wonder why so many people commit heinous crimes - the movies give them plenty of ideas!
4 years, 6 years tops and we will be reading about this girl in a mess like all the other childhood celebrities. I pray to God that I am wrong, but you don't mess up a kids head like this and not live with the consequences.

Garry Peebles Says:
January 3rd, 2007 at 16:43
....I agree that her mother should be ashamed but her daddy should even be more ashamed, daddy's are supposed to protect their daughters. It's part of their job.
....you were talking about Taxi Driver. Several years ago I rented the movie, years after everybody else had already seen it. Later, I was sorry I had wasted the money. I was vile but it was also one of the most boring movies I've ever seen. It gives you a clue of how nutty Hinckley was that he could sit through it 97 times or however many times he supposedly did.
It also makes you wonder how many fruitcakes are out there waiting to do the same thing for Dakota that Hinckley did for Jodie if and when they see Hounddog.
It remains to be seen of course if Hounddog will really launch Dakota's adult movie career but I'll bet she gets more than she bargained for out of it.

Steven Mark Pilling Says:
January 7th, 2007 at 22:32
Okay, this time I spelled my own name right!!

Dear Monika:

I can't tell you how many times I've talked to other abused ex-children since I've been commenting on these sites. With one exception, all have had your exact same attitude. And how could they not, really? Like I told one, you've looked the beast in the eye and lived to tell about it.

It proves, better than anything I could ever say, the lie behind the endless contention of some that movies like this "increase awareness". It's a pure matter of peddling depravity for the sake of the depraved... and harming a child's life and soul in the process. Who knows this better than a molested child? God bless you.

Dear Garry:

It makes you wonder about just how much the alternate universe of Hollywood can warp someone's outlook. The Fannings were not a show business family. They came from a small antebellum city in Georgia and were apparently once good parents to a couple of dear little girls. One child got a big opportunity that she made into an amazing (and heartwarming) success story in films and television, with her little sister following on her coattails.

Then, sometime after she made a film about a farm girl who talks to her livestock, everything changed drastically. Fame and big money (plus the obsessive need to keep it coming at all costs) ha