Well, unless there's breaking news on the start-up of a new STAR WARS film, in which case all geek attention will immediately flock to that!

Let's cut to the chase: the thing that has people up in arms over Dakota Fanning's rape in HOUNDDOG was best summed up by an exchange on HANNITY & COLMES a few nights ago. A guest tried to defend the movie and rape scene by saying "Well, I haven't actually seen it yet, but I hear its tastefully done so it's not bad to see" to which Hannity instantly replied in his best sarcastic manner "Oh, so you mean Hollywood's found a GOOD way to show 12-year old girls being RAPED. That's comforting to know. It's good to know that the creative brain trust in Hollywood put their minds to finally solving THAT problem." And whether you like Hannity or not, it's a valid question worth asking. DOES the world really need to see a 12-year old being raped? Is THAT what anyone is actually clamoring for in a movie these days?

But the movie IS creepy for other reasons too. In quite a few reports I've read online today -- now that HOUNDDOG has officially been screened -- many note that the rape scene IS undeniably unsettling. And while some female reviewers have tried to salvage the situation by arguing the movie should be looked at more as a "female coming of age tale" (and thus female moviegoers should embrace it), on the flip side several male reviewers have simply noted (in short) "No, Fanning just comes off as a sexual tart looking for it, and to be honest it's just creepy." In particular reviewers have also noted (now that the movie has been seen) just how much Fanning runs around in either her underwear or is skimpily dressed, which means coupled with the rape this whole thing becomes a pedophile's best wet dream -- almost like it's a training film.

And just to add to the fire -- as a side tangent into arguments over "what" can be censored or not these days-- now there's legal talk beginning to ripple outward about whether or not the movie does violate certain State laws pertaining to very specific Child Protection Acts that ARE legally on the books, right down to defining whether or not you can portray such a distressing scene and whether towns and cinemas now have the right to refuse showing the movie at on those grounds. Or just as important, if the company that ultimately chooses to distribute HOUNDDOG could be held legally liable for lawsuits and damages for actually distributing such material in violation of said Child Protection Laws.

Frankly, I don't know what's creepier here. That (1) the writer/director sat around one day, looking for a movie idea to spring into their head, at which point a lightbulb went off over their head and they suddenly felt the need to make a movie about a 12-year old being raped... That (2) they creatively couldn't create a so-called "sexual coming of age" story without needing to resort to including an UNDERAGED RAPE scene... or that (3) Fanning, who is rather creepy herself being a 12-going-on-40 mutant herself, decided to star in this thing most likely because someone told her it was a sure fire way to get MORE career attention and maybe even a future Oscar nod for being so "daring." Which means on her end the rape scene wasn't even about the story or so-called "art" (the core reason for defending the movie) but was instead all about whoring herself out onscreen, pandering to the utmost degree so she could win an award. Which goes to show Fanning could care less about actual child rapes versus taking home a Golden Boy one day come Oscar time.

Truth be told, this movie is rather creepy on quite a few fronts...

Director: Okay, next I need someone to be the abused wife. Someone who will mope around alot, continually run their fingers through their hair to show that they're moody, who will chain-smoke because that always means distress, but who's still a pretty face. After all, this IS Hollywood.

Casting Agent: How about getting Robin Wright Penn?

Director: Genius! That's gold, baby, GOLD!

Sorry, but that has to be one of the lamest defenses I've heard yet for this movie, by trying to put something on those that are decrying it -- as if something MUST be wrong with anyone who doesn't like the movie or who dare to disagree with the artistic manner with which the very subject matter was even approached.

Oh, and for the record, trying to frame your stance by selectively taking the supposed female point of view and how they will "feel" about the movie doesn't give your argument any additional weight.

Hey, if we're going to use that particular line of logic to settle this, then here's another one for you. My girlfriend thinks PORN is a lowly, vulgar, degrading use of women, yet I see it as an uplifting and open expression of the human condition and a release of natural human feelings. See how that works?

As for whether this is all justified or not, you've gotta admit the old American double standard of Violence (and the hypocrisy of the titillating horror film) for all vs sweeping Sex under the carpet seems alive and well. Sigh. Why is it the rest of the world isn't as neurotic and in denial (even the Brits aren't as uptight!)? Then again, organised religion is the great equaliser!

My point is that some filmmakers' behavior is inexcusable. However, here, some people are sweating a truly edgy, controversial, and challenging subject...when that is the very thing they demand? AND it was handled all above-board and legit??? Ridiculous.

You're right - thank god no Singer-style stuff.

As a parent, I would never let my child be in a movie like this, especially at that age.

If it bothers people, just don't see it.

If you're looking for someone to tar and feather, look to the parents. For money and fame, they have allowed their 12 year old daughter to pretend to be raped on film. How is that any different than casting her in a Cinemax soft-core porn movie? Its not real - its simulated. Oh oh oh! its art?! I DARE you to tell me that this movie is art. I find no artistic value in this, and Im not alone.

The only reason this movie is even AT Sundance is because... and you know its coming...

Sundance Gotta Eat.

Malik; If the reality of war crimes is immoral and despicable then how can anyone possibly justify its simulation? I'm sure it is depicted in part or in whole for it's emotional and physical impact, and that's also something that art does. It shouldn't just engage with people on an intellectual level. You use a little bit too much subjective langauge in your posts there. Vicarious implies an enjoyment and I'm 99% certain that wasn't the directors intention. Sure a elect few sick bastards will enjoy the scene, but then I'm sure there's a select few sick bastards who enjoy watching people shot or slashed to death, should we remove all violence in film because a few people will get off on it?

He dares to be an angel everyday. Sorry, I just get tired of people that never see his positive side.

Perhaps you need a David Morse hug. Ghoul, can you also call up Dave and make that happen too? Thanks.

The man is an angel from heaven!

And another thing, the fucking uber-lefty fucktards who will defend this shit as art are the same people who call things like Jessica's Law barbaric. Fuck anyone who defends this shit, you're facilitating child molestation.

Let me add that my sister was raped repeatedely for about a year starting when she was 5 years old. I've personally witnessed what effect child rape has on a little girl, and I didn't have to witness the actual rape to understand the ramifications of it. Fuck anyone who defends this abomination, you should be ashamed of yourselves.

1974, raped with a broom handle called "Johnny" by detention center cellmates in Born Innocent. (That was a TV and the scene was soon cut.)

So is Dakota really covering new ground?

Unless the rape turns her into a retard. Then buff that Oscar for Ms. Fanning!

1975, in Sarah T, has sex in exchange for booze.

Remember, this rape scene was CREATED IN THE EDITING ROOM. The actors weren't even on the set together. Fanning recieved directions like, "gasp... now. Okay, start crying, etc." Yes, she knew her character was to be raped, but she had to go through none of the trauma associated with that event. With that direction and the way it was filmed, it would be no more trying for her than scenes where she had to cry when John Creasy was about to be killed, or when aliens were blowing shit up around her. In fact, since she was alone without actors or other props, it might even seem less real to her than those situations. Her folks were even there when they filmed it.

She was probably more traumatized by having to work with Tom Cruise than this.

This is just the media and some politicians trying to push their agenda. Where are the cries to help those ACTUALLY being raped? Or where was all this controversy when a black girl was raped in A TIME TO KILL? Oh, she wasn't a little white girl so who cares? My bad. (seriously, I'm not trying to turn this into a race issue, I just think this argument is ridiculous).

To quote Louie C.K. "Rape is bad, but it's the only way to have sex with someone that doesn't want to have sex with you!

THANK YOU GOODNIGHT TALKBACKERS!

Been saying that about Britney Spears/Shit me to tears for ages on these TBs Barry. Glad someone else actually noticed too. No-one listens. Sniff.

Do they play "Everybody Hurts" over the scene? If not, it's art. If so, movie of the week. See? That was easy.

If you think this is art, well come on over to my house and buy my latest masterpiece, you'll need a net or something so you can fish it out of my toilet.

veebeeyes re: murder - as someone else put it so well, there are simply lines you shouldn't cross for any reason, and while murder is horrible and wrong, it's lightyears from baby raping. Call it a double standard if you must, I call it a different and acceptable standard.

I have to ask, how many of the people defending this shit have kids or have family members who have gone through this? I have both, and I suspect my perspective is different because it affects me in so many real ways.

John Lennon's killer sought publicity and this rape scene was made for the same damn reason, make a movie about a sacred idol of the rich and useless and it's an outrage, but a movie that shows the simulation of a child's rape is fucking art?

The reason there should be lines that are not crossed is because that line gets dragged further and further away from rationality.

First we got a "tasteful" depiction of child rape, and the next thing we hear about is a girl getting raped by a Coke bottle?

Let's say the Dakota scene is tasteful and serves a higher purpose in demonstrating the horrors of baby raping, fine. So what's the next asshole filmmaker going to do with a similar story? It'll be bigger, better, and more brutal and soon it won't be just her face/hands/feet we'll see, it'll be Billy Bob Thornton grinding on top of Dakota's sister with his bare ass in the air.

Don't believe me? How gory have horror films become? They always have to out-do the last guy, and it will be no different here. If you support this trash you're only inviting something far worse to come along next time.

This movie sucks, and worst of all, from all the mainstream reviews we're reading now, the rape scene is pasted onto the movie. Its not dealt with, its not resolved, its not used to teach, instruct, or guide in anyway. It simply happens, and then the movie dusts itself off and moves along to somewhere else.

Its also been turned down by four different major studios. The moral of the story is, when you make a movie for the sake of shock and publicity, better make sure its not a lousy movie *cough* boondock saints *cough*.

Lets pretend for a moment that this movie was a youtube.com publication, shall we? The parents would already be arrested, the child would already be a ward of the system, and youtube would already be scrambling to find ways to keep the movie from popping back up, for fear of legal pitfalls and federal sniffing.

Being a celebrity in America means being allowed to live outside of the laws that everyone else must remain caged within. Keep buying those tickets, tho. This class system can't survive without your lower class dollars.

But I think, in any case that that mix of emotions, from profound sadness to outright disgust, is a huge part of why films like Hounddog are made. Regardless of whether or not showing a 12-year-old being raped - stylistically or not - was the "right" thing to do, an enormous discussion has been generated which I think will ultimately make people think about issues like child abuse and sexual exploitation a lot more than seeing the actual film will. I'd wager that a lot of the people here who have already refused to see it have been made to think a great deal about such horrible topics, and discuss them with others. Whether this leads to any real change or not, well, we can't really know for sure, but at least awareness is being raised in the public consciousness, and that's never a bad thing with such weighty issues.

On the general topic of rape in film...I will agree that Bastard Out Of Carolina (Why always in the Carolinas? Seems to me we're getting a bum rap, we need more Junebugs methinks) was EXTREMELY hard to watch, in particular the scene where Jena Malone's character is actually kissed and held down by her abuser. It's interesting that there wasn't nearly the outcry over that film that we have now, with an approach to child rape that from all accounts has a decidedly more impressionist feel to it. I can't say whether Bastard's rape scene was justified or not, except for it was pretty much icing on an already hard-to-digest cake (it happens almost at the end of an already traumatic film).

One movie I haven't seen anyone bring up yet is Perfect Blue. That film has a broad theme (aside from the main Hitchcockian thriller plot) of exploring the prurient exploitation of young females, particularly famous ones. A young starlet wants a boost for her budding acting career, and so agrees to act out an intensely graphic rape scene, which is shown in full and would pretty much be regarded as hentai if not for the context. The way the scene is used in the film, it sets the stage for a downward spiral of sorts for the young actress, who finds that she's regarded less as a promising star and more as a living prop to be exploited further. It's hard to watch, but an excellent take on a topic that no one seems to want to touch: how the popular media treat young women. In Japan, where Perfect Blue is set, there would seem to be as the film portrays a perpetual craving for young women ever on the crux of going from innocence to violation, but once they cross that line, there is essentially no more use for them. Once Mima acts out her rape, there is no going back to the peppy idol she once was.

Sorry for the long post, but I got to the party a little late, it would seem. Keep up the backtalking!

So whether you want to take that as a critical judgement on the film's actual artistic quality or a statement on what happens when enough people get outraged and speak up -- ala the recall of the recent O.J. book and cancellation of his TV special and the sacking of Judith Regan -- it seems the sun has set on HOUNDDOG.

Well, so much for that controversy. Guess it's back to being geeks and arguing about TRANSFORMERS!

After reading this whole TB, I'm very concerned about the 'we don't need to see this stuff (pro-censorship)/talk about it in the media' some folk here have, as it seems to reflect back like they certainly won't be able to sit down personally with their own kids before they reach puberty or even are out of primary/elementary school and educate them then warn them about the dangers of sexual abuse, as they'll be fighting with their kids' innocence vs safety issues by informing them - and failing them miserably if these statistics are true. Surely it's not unreasonable to say that if you can't handle the depiction or discussion of these issues in the outside world you're going to have a harder time in a more complicated private situation. Leaving it to school or the media to protect them. Right. But then, maybe I shouldn't write this at 4 in the morning.

Then again, what am I saying? Not many geeks in here have or will have kids, so maybe my concern is redundant.

As for the 1 in 4/1 in 7 statistic/estimate, think about your own family. It basically means someone in your immediate or relatively extended family was raped. In EVERYONE'S family. I understand the erring on the side of sensationalism because of the monstrous nature of the crime, but something seems off there, and it's not my naivete. So statistically, as I have two daughters, if I have one more, (and including my wife into the equation) one of them will be or will have been 'baby-raped' as Hairy (sensationally?) says. Maybe it's my maths. Better not have another kid I guess.

Not to make light of the topic, but when I saw Hard Candy, I just couldn't shake the idea that the guy was Steven Soderberg. Distracting.