"At a festival that features several films with sexual content, including full male nudity and a documentary about bestiality, a Southern Gothic tale that includes the rape of a young girl ... (played by 12-year-old Dakota Fanning) ... is causing the biggest stir. Even before the first screening of Hounddog at the Sundance Film Festival this week, a Christian film critic, citing Fanning's age, decried the movie as child abuse, and Roman Catholic activist Bill Donohue called for a federal investigation."The feds investigate Dakota Fanning. My tax dollars at work.
It seems to me that the critics cited above have not seen the movie, and have therefore taken the position that one may not make a movie about the rape of children (unless the child is played by an adult).
I'm not sure if that is a defensible stance. Wouldn't the appropriateness of the film depend on how the rape is handled and whether the rape is portrayed as evil? As I understand it, this is not an exploitation movie, but a serious drama created by a female director with a powerful message. It contains absolutely no nudity of any kind. OK, I admit I have absolutely no intention of seeing the film, but I can't see any reason to call it child pornography.
Thursday, January 25, 2007
Dakota Fanning: 'It's called acting'
No comments:
Post a Comment