All posts with more than 3000 Hits, prior to 2008

Thu Jan 04, 2007 4:50 am

shanebrown wrote:any your latest post, scatter, proves to me what i have thought for a while now - that you read what you want to read and not what people actually write on these boards.


Shane..........you feel it is no big deal to either have a child rape scene, or Elvis' music accompanying it. You feel that it may prove some social good.

My reading comprehension skills are exemplary mate.

I feel some subjects are too repulsive to be thrown up on a 40 foot screen as entertainment, that there is NO social good that will come of it since the issues at hand and in the periphery are no mystery to anyone, and the laws and services have been in place since time immemorial.

That the crux of it??

BTW, LOVED the bleeding heart foray into blaming society for these perverts. Makes the rest of your post almost sensible.

Pray tell..........has society failed the MILLIONS who grow up in abusive homes, in poverty, in broken families, who DON'T commit these atrocious deeds?? The creeps who do this do it of their own volition. Otherwise, ALL the people who grow up disadvantaged and abused (like myself) would do so as well.

Thu Jan 04, 2007 4:52 am

ColinB wrote:
ColinB wrote:From the article:
Kampmeier doesn't show the actual rape, but it's quite clear, from sources who've seen the film, that as scripted and directed, the scenes in question are going to cause as big if not bigger uproar than when Brooke Shields played a pre-pubescent prostitute in Louis Malle's classic "Atlantic City."

Err.... wasn't the Brooke Shield's film called "Pretty Baby" ?

"Atlantic City" starred Burt Lancaster together with Susan Sarandon's nipples......
.....but I don't recall Brooke being in it.


Anybody else think the article is wrong on this ?


It is definitely wrong Colin. You nailed it.......

Thu Jan 04, 2007 5:32 am

When Elvis was alive, if someone asked him if he would like/allow (assuming he owned the rights) one of his songs to be used in a movie scene which depicted a 12 year old child getting raped, do you honestly think he'd apporove?

I seriously doubt it.

Thu Jan 04, 2007 5:54 am

shanebrown wrote:shawn, i think he would at least find out about the film and its intentions before passing judgement!


I honestly don't think he would.... but it's 100% conjecture on my part... still it poses an interesting question - WWED (what would Elvis do).

Thu Jan 04, 2007 7:14 am

Shoot me for saying this, but i agree with what Shane says. I do not condone rape either, but film is a powerful thing that can transmit a message to millions, and can send out a positive message when used correctly
It is sad that such things like this happen, but it does, and through doing it in a film it makes the public more aware to be secure with their children. I believe that Elvis's music will be used in the appropriate manner in that the child uses it as an escape from this act that is committed against her. If it were to be used in a disgusting, inhumane way, you'd findi'd shoot it down immediately

But i also must largely agree with Shane's comment on murder mysteries and films along those lines. Good point i think

Thu Jan 04, 2007 9:48 am

just a movie good grief not like it's real people.
dakota is a great actress give her credit good grief. don't judge till you see. :roll: you think dakota wants to do kid's movies forever? no way.
if you haven't seen it rent hide and seek with dakota its her best film so far.

Thu Jan 04, 2007 10:51 am

carolynlm wrote:When an actor plays a part in a movie where he/she is raped/sexually assaulted/murdered, that particular actor is usually an adult. They make the decision to play that part in the movie, it's totally in their control how they play that part, but, in this instance, the part is being played by a CHILD........not a small adult, but a CHILD......how can this CHILD know exactly what she is doing. If someone wants to watch a murder/mystery with adult actors, then so be it, but the line needs to be drawn somewhere.


Well, Carolyn, I agree with your point.

But this 'rape' happens off-screen - so the child actor doesn't actually 'act' being raped at all, does she ?

Perhaps we should reserve judgement on this film.

Thu Jan 04, 2007 12:34 pm

Kids should read real books again for a change.

Thu Jan 04, 2007 2:01 pm

carolynlm wrote:Yes, Colin, I agree that the scene is said to be 'off screen', but don't you think that Dakota may need to 'act' as though she has been abused in other scenes?
I have no idea how they make movies.....but surely this young girl will need to have some idea on what the story is all about....I just feel that she is being exploited to a certain degree. I just wouldn't allow my child to be put in that situation.


Ditto Carolyn, a child of her age should't have the word rape in her vocabulary yet, let alone be asked to portray a victim of it. Dakota is an excellent actress for her age and I have watched films just because she is in them, I can't for the life of me understand why her Parents would allow her to do such a film.

Thu Jan 04, 2007 2:08 pm

carolynlm wrote:Yes, Colin, I agree that the scene is said to be 'off screen', but don't you think that Dakota may need to 'act' as though she has been abused in other scenes?
I have no idea how they make movies.....but surely this young girl will need to have some idea on what the story is all about....I just feel that she is being exploited to a certain degree. I just wouldn't allow my child to be put in that situation.


Well, you're right, I wouldn't want my grandchildren involved in something like that.

But 'actors' do seem to be more resilient, don't they ?

The article mentions how an extremely young Brooke Shields played a hooker in an early film of hers, but she seems to have come thru into adulthood pretty much unscathed, doesn't she ?

And the same for Jodie Foster....

Even young actors seem to be able to separate their acting roles from real life...

Thu Jan 04, 2007 7:36 pm

shanebrown wrote:You don't think a 13 year old should know the word rape? I find that difficult considering it would be at that age that parents would start to fear...for example, internet chat rooms. Unless we tell our children of the dangers then we can't expect them to protect themselves about it. What's more, rape is now such a common storyline (at least in the UK) in TV drama, soap operas and so on that the likelihood of a 13 year old not knowing what it is is unlikely.

Films are made in very small sections, mostly often of ten to thirty seconds at most and so the whole doesn't come together until it is edited. This is how horror films with kids get away with it - the kids don't see the horror, they do a few seconds of acting at a time which probably doesn't make much sense to them anyway. Fanning on the other hand does seem an intelligent kid and obviously WILL know what she's doing as she is old enough and has been in the business long enough.




I understand what you are saying, that these young adults need to know of the dangers out in the world, that is a sad fact of today, but as for teaching them about the word rape, I find that even sadder.

I am afraid to say but, this story is depicting a girl who has been raped, wether you see it on screen or not, I think it's deplorable that a film should be made which involes ANYBODY getting raped yet alone a child, wether that child be an actress or not. I think it's the subject matter and the fact they are setting it to an Elvis song is what's really disgusting me.

If this film was highlighting the fact that a child was being abused, and the only way she could cope with her pain is by listening to Elvis music, I would go and watch it in a heartbeat............but it's not. They have taken the most disgusting subject and made a film out of it, no doubt there will be some sick b......s out there that will enjoy it too.

Thu Jan 04, 2007 8:45 pm

Shane...........two words.

CHILD RAPE


What about that do you not understand??? Rape, murder.........whatever.I can't watch any movie,TV show, WHATEVER when a child is being abused.
So your point (such as it was)about rape/murder, etc being show , and we don't care is bullocks. We're talking about a child. A CHILD.

As for you equally obtuse point that this child rape must be re-enacted for some nebulous social good,answer me this.........

WHY must it be acted out?? Couldn't they tell the story without that disgusting act being portrayed?? Of course they could. In fact, Hollywood was able to tell stories both more artistically, AND more powerfully WITHOUT any of the graphic garbage we are subjected to today.

So..............WHY do they portray it onscreen?? To stimulate just this sort of prurient interest. Why do you think Dakota Fanning is all over the web, TV, and print talking about this?? Because the producers are pushing her out there, that's why.

And, WHY are they pushing her out there?? To let the public KNOW that there's a ripping good child rape scene in the movie, that's why.

And WHY again is there a ripping good child rape scene in the first place?? To drum up controversy so saps will frequent the picture, that's why.
Therefore, their NEXT project will get better financed, and they will make a fortune.

They COULD have told the same story JUST as powerfully without a depiction of child rape. History proves as much. That they did not proves either one, or likely ALL of these conclusions.

They lack the talent to tell the story without the a child being raped onscreen.

They want the child rape depicted because they rely on the controversy to sell tickets regardless of whether it's a story imperative.

They (apparently accurately) have enough disdain for their audience that they are certain that no matter what demeaning (to actress, filmmakers, and audience alike) filth they portray, it will garner a mass audience.

And that is the saddest thing of all...........you're being manipulated and you aren't even cognizant of it. They put something so revolting onscreen when they didn'y have to, relying that the market ( with their dulled sensibilities) will flock to it looking for a more graphic and degenerate thrill than the last one Hollywood spewed upon us.

No thanks.........do let us know if the child rape was tastefully done though, and whether Elvis would have approved. Sheeple..........

Thu Jan 04, 2007 9:18 pm

The fallacious appeals to emotion and hatemongering committed in here is why I will be loosening my association with FECC this year.

Enough is enough.

I'm with shane. 100%.

Thu Jan 04, 2007 9:21 pm

Scatter wrote:So..............WHY do they portray it onscreen??
To stimulate just this sort of prurient interest.
Why do you think Dakota Fanning is all over the web, TV, and print talking about this??
Because the producers are pushing her out there, that's why............................
They lack the talent to tell the story without the a child being raped onscreen.


Kampmeier doesn't show the actual rape


Err..... kinda ruins your case, doesn't it ?

Thu Jan 04, 2007 9:32 pm

ColinB wrote:
Scatter wrote:So..............WHY do they portray it onscreen??
To stimulate just this sort of prurient interest.
Why do you think Dakota Fanning is all over the web, TV, and print talking about this??
Because the producers are pushing her out there, that's why............................
They lack the talent to tell the story without the a child being raped onscreen.


Kampmeier doesn't show the actual rape


Err..... kinda ruins your case, doesn't it ?


I was a bit confused about that too. Scat, it's been said numerous times in this thread that it isn't acted out. I do see both points of view on this. Shane's point about such a film acting as a warning is a good one, particularly with the explosion of internet chat rooms etc. If the rape was actually depicted on screen, I would be firmly in the Scatter camp on this though.

Thu Jan 04, 2007 9:45 pm

Cryogenic wrote:The fallacious appeals to emotion and hatemongering committed in here is why I will be loosening my association with FECC this year.

Enough is enough.

I'm with shane. 100%.

I hear there is a lot of love over on the board that Marty Lacker visits.

Thu Jan 04, 2007 9:51 pm

Rob wrote:I hear there is a lot of love over on the board that Marty Lacker visits.


There's love, Rob, but not as we know it....

Thu Jan 04, 2007 10:52 pm

......I've got a thing about you baby ... Not good...
Last edited by Juan Luis on Fri Jan 05, 2007 3:39 am, edited 1 time in total.

Fri Jan 05, 2007 12:52 am

TJ wrote:
ColinB wrote:
Scatter wrote:So..............WHY do they portray it onscreen??
To stimulate just this sort of prurient interest.
Why do you think Dakota Fanning is all over the web, TV, and print talking about this??
Because the producers are pushing her out there, that's why............................
They lack the talent to tell the story without the a child being raped onscreen.


Kampmeier doesn't show the actual rape


Err..... kinda ruins your case, doesn't it ?


I was a bit confused about that too. Scat, it's been said numerous times in this thread that it isn't acted out. I do see both points of view on this. Shane's point about such a film acting as a warning is a good one, particularly with the explosion of internet chat rooms etc. If the rape was actually depicted on screen, I would be firmly in the Scatter camp on this though.


Errrrrrrr.........no,the case doesn't change a bit. The prelude to the rape will certainly be portrayed. If the rape itself is not shown to the point of penetration, does that make it OK with you people??

"Ah well, her knickers were hardly off at all.Just a bit of tearing at clothes ON THE 12 YEAR OLD.

Nothing at all really.

All the moaning and screaming was done while actual penetration was off-camera. Then the shot as the poor, socially unfortunate bloke pulled back and upped his trousers. Nothing at all..........."

Are you all REALLY this naive?? Do you REALLY believe this is about artistic license rather than purely degenerate tittilation?? Please........

Shane, for all your blather about my not paying attention, you do precious little of it buddy.

All the films of the 40s - 60s showed unpleasant things, huh?? Whoopee.

Find me the child rape scenes. Gunbattles........shootouts........gore. Not child rape.

Fact is, the line of decency has been trampled over by relativist sociopaths until the majority cannot even find the lines of decency any longer. Art my ass.........

And to further demonstrate your failure to listen, I ask again, as pointedly as possible...........DO YOU THINK ELVIS WOULD APPROVE, AND DO YOU THINK IT'S A POSITIVE FOR HIS IMAGE??

Further, do you believe that the child rape scene, and its omnipresent promotion, is just coincidental, or is it the plan of the producers to drum up interest, sales, and cash by appealing to the basest of instincts??

if your answer is no, then your obtuseness is staggering.

Read slowly..........move your lips if necessary. Answer the questions.

Fri Jan 05, 2007 1:02 am

Cryogenic wrote:The fallacious appeals to emotion and hatemongering committed in here is why I will be loosening my association with FECC this year.

Enough is enough.

I'm with shane. 100%.


How WILL we go on?? :lol:

Fri Jan 05, 2007 1:38 am

The pathetic moralising from people in here is, in a word ......... SHOCKING.

But not at all surprising.

If you don't like it, don't watch it. Simple.

To denigrate and accuse people who don't blindly hate this endeavour is Salem-esque hysteria at its finest.

Live and let live? More Christian BS. Ah....... what a lovely belief system.

And this is particularly interesting:

Scatter wrote:Errrrrrrr.........no,the case doesn't change a bit. The prelude to the rape will certainly be portrayed. If the rape itself is not shown to the point of penetration, does that make it OK with you people??

"Ah well, her knickers were hardly off at all.Just a bit of tearing at clothes ON THE 12 YEAR OLD.

Nothing at all really.

All the moaning and screaming was done while actual penetration was off-camera. Then the shot as the poor, socially unfortunate bloke pulled back and upped his trousers. Nothing at all..........."


For someone who supposedly hates this entire idea to the very core of his being ............ you do have a way with words.

Fri Jan 05, 2007 2:02 am

Maybe the most controversial film heading to this month's Sundance Film
Festival concerns the rape of a 12-year-old girl while Elvis Presley is heard singing in the background.

"HoundDog," written and directed by Deborah Kampmeier, is already getting more advance attention than "Chapter 27," the film about Mark David Chapman murdering John Lennon.

That's because the character played by 12-year-old actress Dakota Fanning, who made her mark six years ago in "I Am Sam," is raped onscreen.

Kampmeier doesn't show the actual rape, but it's quite clear, from sources who've seen the film, that as scripted and directed, the scenes in question are going to cause as big if not bigger uproar than when Brooke Shields played a pre-pubescent prostitute in Louis Malle's classic "Atlantic City.n a terrific piece in the new Premiere magazine, Fanning's agent, Cindy Osbrink, tells writer Henry Cabot Beck: "I've been working with Dakota since she was five, and this is something we haven't seen her do. Something that really challenged her talent. 'HoundDog' was one of the best experiences of her life, a story that needs to be told, and she tells it with her soul as no one else can."

Apparently there are already a number of Web sites protesting this film, and lots of comments on the Internet Movie Data Base lamenting the potential exploitation of Fanning.

What could do the movie in, though, is the soundtrack of Elvis Presley records. It's unclear whether the Presley estate will approve the licensing of the ultimate pop idol's voice as the film's backdrop, or even if the writers of the song "Hound Dog" β€” Jerry Leiber and Mike Stoller β€”won't do something to keep their famous composition out of it.

No producers are credited yet for "HoundDog," by the way, but the Premiere article does cite Jen Gatien as having raised funds and lists her as "daughter of New York club owner Peter Gatien."

For the record, Peter Gatien β€” implicated in the famous nightclub murder of Angel Melendez that was depicted in the Macaulay Culkin movie "Party Monster"β€” was deported to Canada in 2003. He'd pled guilty in 1999 to not paying $1.9 million in taxes and spent 60 days in jail, after he was acquitted of federal drug charges in 1996.

His many New York clubs, like Limelight and the Tunnel, were the scenes of constant drug raids during their heyday.





OK I went back and read the original article. Can you now tell me there is ANYTHING RIGHT with this film after reading that blurb?


It's all there RAPE FILM CONTROVERSIAL...........now can people see why folks are getting a little het up? They are actually using the word RAPE in the headlines..............

Fri Jan 05, 2007 2:12 am

sid wrote:OK I went back and read the original article. Can you now tell me there is ANYTHING RIGHT with this film after reading that blurb?


Try adjusting your brain.

Cyanide comes highly recommended.

Fri Jan 05, 2007 2:17 am

shanebrown wrote:off-screen does not necessarily mean that we will hear it happening! It probably means that we will find out about it afterwards. Or perhaps see the girl go off with the guy and then fade to when the girl is found afterwards etc. I think you use the term off-screen a little too literally! But the answer again here is that we dont know what off-screen means and there is little point in surmising.

I don't intend to go through the long list of films from the 40s to 60s that actually include rape within their storylines. I suggest you go on the imdb and find them out for yourself. But you could start with "M" by Fritz Lang starring Peter Lorre which is about a serial child molester and killer from 1931. And not one sex scene in it.

You're proving my point........

There is also the onscreen murder of a child in Sabotage by Hitchcock from 1936, which is still daring even by todays standards.

Though not as daring as raping a child, no??


Madonna Of The Seven Moons (1945) has child rape as part of its storyline.

Really.........let's compare the two films in question. I wonder which will be graphic, and which one managed to tell the story without the gratuitous elements. Done proving my point yet??

As for rape (or attempted rape) you could try Blackmail (1929), Outrage (1950), To Kill A Mockingbird (1962), Town Without Pity (1961 - gang rape), The Wind (1928).

Ive seen most of those...........how many kids were raped? A round figure will do. I have a nice round one..........0.

Also, I never mentioned anything about the film being a work of art. I was talking of it possibly being intelligent, but that is not the same thing. It might be a work of art, but I never said that it would be.

No, "art" is used a cloak behind which criticism can be hidden from. Then the pompous decry the barbarity and the unsophistication of critics from behind that tattered cloak. Most are actually as interested in art as Larry Flynt.

As for the link with Elvis, I have no interest in that point to be honest - I don't care whether the musical soundtrack is by Beethoven or Bob Dylan. As you may have noticed by many previous posts of the last week or so, I do not view Elvis as a God. I don't worship him, I never have. If his music fits as much as any other (or more than any other) then I see no reason not to use it. Again, we do not know in what way the music will be used. If the girl uses the music as a way to get through her ordeal then I see no reason why anyone should complain. According to Allmovie guide on the web, this is exactly what happens:

"A precocious but troubled young girl living in 1950s-era Alabama seeks solace in the music of Elvis Presley in director Deborah Kampmeier's controversial tale of childhood trauma and musical healing."

another online report states:

"it's a story about human understanding, about a little girl who's dealt a very bad deck of cards, but finds solace in the music of Elvis and survives."

Well, that is the issue that was put forward. Would Elvis approve, and how will it affect his image.

As a film student, I find it difficult to reconcile your artistic sensibilities with your utter disregard for the sensibilities of OTHER artists, and whether those sensibilities should be considered when utilizing their art.

You don't have to consider Elvis God to consider such things, do you??


Finally, you still talk constantly about the "rape scene". I will remind you once more that a scene is something that we see. We are not going to see it. not...going...to...see...it. The prelude to rape is not "certainly" going to be shown. The problem here is that you...don't...know. No-one has seen it yet. There are very strict rules in the States as to what can be shown on film by someone under 18. Emile Hirsch in the comedy "The Girl Next Door" had to have a "stunt backside" as he couldn't show his own as he was 17 when the film was made, for example. You can be assured that the whole thing will be monitored very carefully.[/i]


The production coordinator for Hounddog says Dakota Fanning was wearing a body suit during the entire rape scene and there was a child welfare worker on the set, along with Fanning's agent and her mother.[3] The production coordinator estimates the rape scene will only take up about a minute of the entire feature-length film. She says it was shot above the shoulders, using Fanning's facial expressions to tell the story.[3]

Precisely what is the bodysuit for?? Gymnastics practice?? Aerobics??Her off-camera work??

We-DO-KNOW what is going to be seen NOW, don't we?? Her BODY, her FACE........ON CAMERA.

Fri Jan 05, 2007 2:26 am

Cryogenic wrote:
sid wrote:OK I went back and read the original article. Can you now tell me there is ANYTHING RIGHT with this film after reading that blurb?


Try adjusting your brain.

Cyanide comes highly recommended.




Thought you were going?


Why did you write that pray tell.

If you can think of nothing else other than to insult me I pity you........here's me thinking you were an educated Guy too!

Shall I tell you why I dont need to adjust my brain? because I read that article and thought there are some dickheads out there that are going to love this film.............they are playing right into the hands of any perverts and scum who prey on children I just hope NOTHING happens to some poor innocent child because of this film.

Hopefully people will come to there senses and boycott it before it even reaches our shores, or EPE or the songwriters give it the wide berth it deserves.

Another thing speaking as someone who has worked with abused children , a little while ago something very similar to the storylines of this film actually happened and I can tell you now the repercussions were NOT pleasant at all.


And please dont insult me or my intelligence again...........my posts on this board may not be rivetting or as full of Elvis information as you like, but I am a newcomer to Forums......less than a year in fact..........but am here to learn.