Just reading about the controversial movie Houndog that is playing at the Sundance Film Festival. The movie portrays a 
young girl being raped and it has a large number of opponents to it being shown. I have to say it won’t be on my Netflix list or a rush to purchase the DVD, but the most amazing quote I read was little Ms. Dakota Fanning herself:
"I know my mom would take me to see it. You have to prepare your children for things that happen in the world. Everything isn’t rosy." ~ Dakota Fanning
I’m certain that your mother may be taking you to the movie, but not all of us play a person in a movie and are being paid lots of money to promote it. I’ll be preparing my children in other more constructive ways.
Photo: Evan Agostini / Getty
RSS feed for comments on this post.
TrackBack URI
creative-type dad Says:
I don’t need my kid to see that movie as a “teaching moment”.
Her parents are stupid for letting an agent convince them that this was a good for her career.
Pete Aldin Says:
But … like …don’t actors … like … know everything?? I thought Hollywood was an educational institution!
Jeannine Says:
I agree, that this is not a movie I would take my daughters to see.
However, sometimes there is a certain “shock moment” necessary to get it through to them.
My daughters and I talk about these subjects and it is usually them who bring it up.
The other day I heard my younger one (who is quite a tomboy) say: “I can take care of myself. If someone threatens me I just hit and bite and kick him.
I had a good friend of the family here when she said that. We were shocked to hear her say that (she did not know we overheard). So, with my permission, he came up from behind, grabbed her, dragged her into the living room and pinned her to the floor (all the while being careful not to hurt her).
We then told her that it took about 8 seconds for someone who wasn’t even that big a guy, who was trying not to hurt her, to drag her to somewhere no one can see and put her in a situation where she can’t do anything. We told her that the best way to deal with such situations, is to never get yourself into one. We told her that she should never be over confident.
Things happen, and they happen fast.
She was a bit quieter for the rest of the day, but it seems to have stuck.
Sometimes children need to visualize things in order to understand.
I am not saying that a movie is the right way to do that, but just talking often doesn’t help either.
cornfed Says:
There is a lot of ugliness in the world, as well as beauty. In their younger years I preferred to expose them to the beauty of the world and shelter/protect them as best I could from the rest. As they have grown and become more independent (Daugther #3 is a HS senior), I shelter them less and challenge them on what they know comparatively to reality.
I have never liked scaring my kids into obedience or submission. Innocence is a wonderful thing that should not be stripped as quickly as possible.
pkelley Says:
Wow! In 20 years she will look back and think, “what the hell was I thinking?”
Maybe not.
Leon Says:
You’d think she’d be a little more subtle when promoting her movie.
CMD Says:
Check out the website http://www.minorcon.org
This is the site for a non-profit organization established and run by my friend and colleague Paul Peterson (he played “Jeff” on the Donna Reed Show).
On this site there is a wealth of factual information regarding the movie Houndog, and about child labor laws. You will read that during the filming of this movie, the on-set reality was so disturbing that the crew walked off in protest.
The issue here is that – as a minor – Dakota Fanning cannot legally give what is called “informed consent.”
Her parents/guardians must do that on her behalf.
I have the script; I have read it. The digest version is that it’s the story of a little girl who gets raped in persuit of tickets to an Elvis concert.
The over-arching story is that her family is dirt poor, and they are each – in their own way – depraved (sexual involvement and interaction, for no apparent reason in the story), and there is no “saving grace” at the end. The story does not leave the reader/viewer uplifted.
Furthermore, what was left on the cutting room floor (mutual masterbation scene, etc.) the audience “may” never see (with internet, who knows?); the issue here is that a 12 year old acted in all of it, and will live with that forever.
I fear for Dakota; she is now at risk vie these images, for perversion lurks everywhere, adn we all know what Jodie Foster and Brooke Shields endured.
If you are truly seriously interested in further facts, do visit Paul’s website. And if you pray, please pray for Dakota’s safety.
kristarella Says:
Is that really a picture of Dakota Fanning?!
Anyway, it’s definitely each parent’s choice to expose their child to something like that or not. It’s definitely not for Fanning to decide that it’s good parenting form, one way or the other. At that age I don’t believe she understands sex enough for the whole thing to bother her right now. Hopefully the experience of making the film won’t burn her memory when she’s older and knows more.
As I get older the idea of rape affects me more and more. I nearly threw up watching a rape scene in Eye For An Eye. I don’t think it would be right to take my child (if she existed) to watch something that I might not be able to cope with.
Bev Says:
Obviously, Dakota (and her mother)feel this film will further her career. However, to put your child in a situation like that is quite extreme. I agree with Dakota’s statement referring to issues that affect children “everything isn’t always rosy”…but not every 12 year old gets raped everyday. I was thinking more on the lines of peer pressure, school pressure, and growing pains. The kid is a gifted actress, but I somehow think that she (and her mother) are feeling the competition of other gifted young actresses and she did this film purposely to try and “kick it up a notch”.
Martin Says:
You’re a jerk. Someone said here that they hoped that “the experience of making the movie won’t burn her memory when she’s older and knows more”. I don’t believe any of you really hope that; obviously the kind of grief she’s getting from idiots like you is far more likely to “burn her memory”.
And she wasn’t giving you “parenting advice”. Get over yourself. She was defending her own parents’ reason for taking her to see it. I hope you’re proud of yourself, twisting a 12 year old’s words and humiliating her so so you can write, “Sorry, Miss Fanning…” and feel really impressed with yourself. Yeah, I see right through you.
And even if she was giving you parenting advice – supppose it had been good advice, are you saying you wouln’t take it just because it was coming from a 12 year old.
Arrogant jerk!
And there was nothing graphic about the scene, so what the hell is everyone so mad about? The fact that it refers to a social evil? Are you saying we should just not refer to social evils in art – or that we should only when we’re 18 and older, in a secret society we form with others who are 18 and older? You’re a jerk and a philistine. And I bet you’ll take this down cause I’m sure you’re not half as brave as Dakota fanning and couldn’t endure to be mocked in public the way you’re doing to her.
Genuine Says:
You obviously are a new reader here Martin. Of course I won’t take it down, and yes I can stand as much public scrutiny as the next person. The point of my post you so adequately missed was not that what she did was wrong or right. At 12, I don’t believe that she has the wisdom to make a statement like “you have to prepare your children.” Her interest was to have us come out and see her movie, not the welfare of children everywhere. Since I can;t come and read about you Martin, I won’t make public pronouncements about you, but I’m curious about your own expertise as a parent of young children and more importantly, a daughter that could be very traumatized from seeing a child not much older or larger than herself be sexually abused on widescreen and in full color.
Martin Says:
Seems to me, a lot of people that commented here missed that point.
I don’t think there was any pretended altruism or concern for the welfare of children behind those words, they were obviously intended as a justification of the film’s frankness, nothing more.
As for trauma, I completely understand that position, and I agree that that should be one of our foremost concerns when it comes to issues of censorship, especially on an issue such as rape/underage sex. However, I also believe people mature at different rates and I think that while your own daughter might indeed be traumatized by viewing that scene (and I don’t question your authority on that) there are many twelve year olds who wouldn’t be and could possibly benefit from it. I say this as someone who has been 12 once, and who has benefited from a great many experiences in life, not all of them “good” – or even profound.
Your issue seems to be almost entirely with the “graphic” nature of that scene (which is, technically speaking, actually minimal, according to conventions in filmmaking – except for the fact that we are dealing here with a twelve year old actress – and actually exercises and obvious method of self-censorship, for what that’s worth) and not necessarily with the concept it’s illustrating. But in that case the trauma you’re so afraid of is superficial and has only to do with a fleeting image – which, again, may or may not scar children. The deeper issue – the fact that such things do occur, and they occur to children that young – is something that can, perhaps should, be discussed openly and responsibly, even in the presence of children.
I don’t think I hear anyone saying, “here’s a film which you should show your children, cause it’s good for them” – the position everyone seems to be backing them into is rather that the film (obviously meant for adults) is not “bad” for the effect it will have on children. And of course you, the parent, should finally be responsible for deciding what is good for your child to see when, and not Dakota Fanning; and the bottom line is, I don’t think she was presuming to make that decision for you at all.
Martin Says:
Oh, you found me, over at LJ. Well, most of my important entries there are locked, which is why I didn’t mention that blog here. Did you follow the links I placed in the comments above your own, btw?
One By One Media » Professional Bloggers Are Intelligence Gatherers Says:
[...] A couple of weeks back, during the Sundance Film Festival, I posted on my personal blog about the movie Hounddog, starring Dakota Fanning. The movie entered controversy in the film world because Ms. Fanning appeared in a rape scene that was shown. As a father of a 7 year old daughter, you can imagine I was appalled at the notion of a 12 year old girl being involved in a scene such as that, and then later saying it was no big deal and that parents should let their children see the movie to show them the "real world". I don’t want to get off on that tangent again. As a result of that post on my blog, a commenter took umbrage with my statement and called me "a jerk". Not a problem, I have been called worse, and anytime you speak of religion, politics or other moral topics you are bound to have a heated discussion. In this particular instance, the commenter left no URL for me to visit his own blog. Not knowing if his email address was actually a fake or a real address, I left a response on the blog, and a dialogue ensued. [...]
otto Says:
Hounddog is simply a movie about a rape victim. The rape scene is not graphic, and all we see is Dakota’s face. She was never touched by another actor in the scene, and filmed it alone. Her mother and a welfare agent were on the set at all times. Also, Dakota was not paid a lot of money to do this movie; in fact, she did it for scale and ended up passing up better paying projects while waiting for the movie to secure financing.
As for people like Paul Peterson, they are exploiting Dakota’s popularity and success to further their own agenda. Paul’s buddy Bill Donohue of the Catholic League admitted on CNN if it had been an unknown actress instead of Dakota who had appeared in Hounddog, he would not have bothered protesting the movie. This is because Dakota’s name gets them on shows like Hannity & Colmes and Wolf Blitzer, while an unknown actress would not. The irony of course is that it’s the unknown actresses who need help, not multi-millionaire Dakota with a team of lawyers at her disposal. The mere thought that Dakota would be placed in a compromising situation is laughable.