Dakota Fanning's Rape Movie Gets Distribution

dakota fanning should pose for playboy anytime she wants

Dear Josh:

Two noteworthy occasions on July 20th.

1. The North Carolina Chapter of Concerned Women For America issued a formal request to the NC State Assembly for an investigation into the conduct of the state's Film Office over the question of "Hounddog". They are questioning why the Office authorized the filming of such a film and why, after it was done, the filmmakers were granted a 15% rebate on the production costs... which came to $387,567 of the taxpayer's money. This is the first serious legal challenge to the movie since the local prosecutors fluffed it off more than a year ago.

2. The 20th was "Hounddog Day". On that day in 2006, Lloyd Grove's column set off a wave of national controversy and awareness over Hollywood's crossing-of-the-line into actual child porn.

Empire Film Group has already thrown millions of good money after bad in the revamping and re-promotion of this film. Despite their claims, it seems evident that "Hounddog's" rescheduled release for September 5th was mainly to allow the beginning of the political season to provide cover from critics. If this event in North Carolina catches hold, it will be the worst possible news for them. That they have foolishly squandered their resources on a huge and proven loser of a film such as this is one thing. That, in doing so, they have likewise sought to forward the cause of indecency with children is yet another. Frankly, I hope their entire rotten house collapses over this.

Dear Mr. Michod:

I apologize for having missed your post until now. As for Josh Tyler, I used his first name only because I've commented on his columns a number of times in the past. I do not know him personally.

As to your comments:

1. Although you may have thought that the film wasn't "that" bad (I assume from the technical and not moral context) a number of reviewers found it to BE that bad... and in both senses. Although film critics rarely envoke moral content in films, some do. Their comments were unabashedly horrified. Little wonder, if the screenplay was any guide at all. While the "mainstream" reviewers deftly avoided the moral issue, they were uniformly negative on the film's screen merits. It wasn't just the "controversy" over child porn that made this film a fiasco (although that should have been plenty of reason alone!), but the additional fact that the movie just plain stunk.

2. If the screenplay and witness statements from the filming are in any way accurate (and, after much research, I'm convinced that they are) then felonious activities WERE present during "Hounddog's" making. As one of only two states where there is no Jessica's Law (and none forthcoming), North Carolina is one of the most notoriously lax states in the nation when it comes to enforcement of child exploitation laws. (New Mexico is the other.) That's only one of the reasons "Hounddog" was filmed there.

3. On at least one other occasion was the child porn "barrier" crossed in feature films. That one, however, was so minor that no one noticed it. "Hounddog", in comparison, had a prominent cast and, mainly through Dakota's starpower, was intended to legitimize this in feature films.

4. You should see the hype Empire Film Group is now trying to put on "Hounddog's" Labor Day release! A sweepstakes, for God's sake!

5. They apparently succeeded in getting a PG13 rating. According to their distribution chief, virtually every child sex scene in the film has been cut out or marginalized. Fine. But that doesn't bode well for a film who's central theme WAS child sex. Nor does it negate what was done to three children on the set of that movie.

6. No argument, there. For further on the subject, please visit my website at "xanga.com/STEVENPILL". You'll find about a dozen and a half columns. May I recommend, in particular, my February 23rd article entitled "Dakota Turns 14".

Steven Mark Pilling,

1. I saw the movie at Sundance it was FAR from horrible. The only reason it did not get picked up at first was because of the controversy. Which is why it is being picked up now, all had hoped that the controversy had died down enough, several companies wanted to distribute it because it was a well done movie. Further more the only people that walked off the set walked off due to a disagreement on the way things should be setup (the proper tools were not used)

2. There was nothing Illegal about the scene, morally maybe I am not here to debate that. morally the bible tells us that this body is a vessel and anybody scene drunk in a film period is morally WRONG.

3. I agree with the point that it is unlikely that this film will produce 15 million since it is only going to be in 500 theaters. but the possibility is certainly there it has been done before in several incidents.

4. Once again agreed here, but more to the point, this is the only reason that some said that the movie wasn't as good as the HYPE made it seem it would be. as with many movies that are over stated, they may be great movies just not as good as the hype got people set up for.

5. Very little is being cut from the movie at this point in time, and it is still hoping for a PG13 MPaa but the final word has not been given. There has been many worse films recently that got this rating. This movie is well done and artistic not simply crude.

6. RAINN's endorsement... well it's meaningless either way, matter of fact it may have just more controversy, my point... "RAINN's endorsement is hardly the last word. Groups strongly allied with Hollywood will ape the Hollywood line, regardless of their alleged cause. I shouldn't have to remind you how many others spoke against using children in acts of depravity. The "it'll raise awareness" lie is porn's oldest and most prevalent excuse."

And just out of curiosity, do you know this Josh Tyler? If not then out of respect call him Mr. Tyler or better yet why address him at all?

Dear Josh:

Several points here.

1. A large number of people who saw the film at Sundance,
Santa Barbara and on set during its making (remember the set technicians who walked off?) were horrified by the content. Their comments- plus the original screenplay itself- illustrates why.

2. The molestation scene was merely the worst of many that involved degeneracy, violence and child sex. That Dakota was likely wearing a body sock or pasties in these scenes vindicates nothing. Technically, morally (and legally!) the crime is the same for children in a sexual situation as is actual nudity.

3. The claims of Empire Film Group must be studied closely. "500 theaters" and only "$15 million profit" (they hope!) means the film's release will be limited mainly to "art film" theaters.

4. All publicity is not necessarily good publicity. "Hounddog's" well-hyped premiere at Sundance 2007 was a huge debacle. The press conference only made it worse.

5. If they manage to get a PG13 from MPAA, it'll mean that they've cut the film up like crazy. The original production was little more than one disgusting and degenerate scene after another. It'd take some fancy editing! Even then, it would not negate what was done to three child actors in its making.

6. RAINN's endorsement is hardly the last word. Groups strongly allied with Hollywood will ape the Hollywood line, regardless of their alleged cause. I shouldn't have to remind you how many others spoke against using children in acts of depravity. The "it'll raise awareness" lie is porn's oldest and most prevalent excuse.

My God, Josh. After all the commentary of the last 20 months, I shouldn't have to remind you of any of this.

In the movie Dakota is NOT naked and its not all about the rape, so plz dont post mean things about that movie and Dakota Fanning is a great actor and should be reconized in a GREAT way, thank you!
~DAANA~