Movies News
By Stone Martindale Jan 24, 2007, 21:23 GMT
Dakota Fanning 'mad as she can be' at 'Hounddog' critics
And Also
Dakota Fanning - View Dakota Fanning Pictures - Dakota Fanning News
|
|
|
|
|
Similar articles
- New Volturi featurette for 'Twilight: New Moon'
- Two new clips from 'New Moon'
- New full trailer for 'The Twilight Saga: New Moon'
- Second trailer for 'The Twilight Saga: New Moon'!
- Teaser trailer for 'The Twilight Saga: New Moon' now online
Latest Headlines in Movies
- 1. Pattinson, Ravin, Brosnan in new 'Remember Me' trailer
- 2. Vampire mayhem in second 'Daybreakers' trailer
- 3. Pearce feeling 'Hungry'
- 4. Donnelly and Oppenheimer go for 'Fortune'
- 5. Anthony Peckham to immerse in 'Deep Sea'
Older Talkback
For those upset by this film:
Instead of protesting and rallying against the film, Dakota, her mother, her agent, the director, etc. Ask yourself what you're really upset about? Better yet, ask yourself if you're placing your anger in the right place. Dakota 'depicted' a rape. But children ARE being raped. If you're upset, don't waste time protesting a film that will be released anyway. If you truly want to have an impact, direct your energy towards protecting children, supporting child protection laws and organizations that work for the rights of children. If you stop Dakota Fanning from never depicting a rape again - that really won't make a difference. However, if you can help to stop children from actually being raped, you can have a tremendous impact on the world.
'We don't have to be a film maker to know what the scene portrays. Everyone is missing the point........that people are voicing their opinion that this 'child/woman' shouldn't be the one to make the decision on doing the film.'
'No one is implying there was an actual rape going on for the filming - you need to read more carefully. However it was done, most people don't think it was especially necessary or that a 12 year old was mature enough to make the decision of doing the film.'
Read more carefully indeed. There are quite a few zealots on here implying that possibility. Nonetheless, what I'm saying is that opinions are a dime a dozen. Who are any of you to pass judgement on an artist's decision, no matter what age? You insist that a 12-year-old should be 'protected' from being faced with knowledge of child rape by not being allowed to decide whether she wants to be faced with knowledge of child rape? She would never have been offered such a part if the filmmakers didn't think she was talented enough to handle it. If she were a feckless puppet like Macaulay Culkin and so many other cute little money mountains with stage parents, the script would never have come anywhere near her.
It's pointless to generalize about what is good for ALL children - how is that different from racism, really? (Please think comparatively, not literally.) What 'most people' think is irrelevant, aside from displaying embarrassing moral pomposity. Are you superior to the unfortunate fools who would subject a poor kid to such a senselessly explicit movie role? Just like Dakota is 'superior' to her peers? Who must know it, and why? What is your true motivation for posting here? Why bother? Come to think of it, I wonder why I've bothered. Wow, I just outed myself as trying to seem superior! How arrogant of me. What's MY motivation for posting? I'm no better than any of you - my opinion is just as worthless. What was it that someone said about suffering fools? Man, I must be procrastinating. My work is done here.
Kampmeier:
'I didn't have to articulate to Cody and Isabelle the psychological elements that were going on in this film,' she said. 'I used images to tell the story. I didn't manipulate these children or explain to these children what was going on.'
Dakota:
'It's not really happening,' Fanning said of a rape. 'It's a movie, and it's called acting. I'm not going through anything. Cody and Isabelle aren't going through anything, their characters are.
'And for me, when it's done it's done,' she said. 'I don't even think about it anymore.'
Forget Dakota Fanning or anyone involved in that film for a moment. Why don't we do a quick check on the level of hypocrisy displayed here. I'm talking about all you religious wackos!
Had this controversy surfaced a few months earlier, I can guarantee you that Reverend Ted Haggard, ex-president of the National Association of Evangelicals who is accused of buying illegal drugs from a male prostitute and paying him for sex, would have strongly criticized the film as well as the people involved.
Such hypocrites...
Good Grief - no one is implying that Dakota should be protected from the knowledge that rape of children really goes on in that she should not have made the movie - duh!!!! I think you need to get a life
Dear Falling from grace, the path of purity is indeed difficult, that is why it is considered a sacrifice. I would think carnal pleasures would best be handled by avoiding the triggers as much as possible. If chocolate is your downfall, and you're serious about avoiding it, you don't cruise the candy aisle. You must eat to live but you can survive not eating cake. Not fun, not easy, but doable. If you are a pastor maybe some of the people around you could suggest some viewing that is more inspirational and less carnal. BTW as an adult you are responsible for your actions. I would think if you know right from wrong and just cannot help yourself you need to get help with that. I doubt most people would consider 'films such as the one in question, rub in our faces the pleasures we are forgoing'. Since when is a movie about abuse/rape of a twelve year old girl pleasurable material? I think this is a film that will most interest viewers who have been in the situation described. Maybe the film is a voice for those who are still too hurt to raise theirs, and a recognition they are not alone. It's great so many are outraged, to me it means there are many vigilant parents out there. All children and innocents deserve to be so blessed. I think Dakota Fanning can hardly be critisized for trying to defend her family from the opinions of the press, most children will defend their parents. She shouldn't be portraying rape, and rape shouldn't be happening.
Good Grief!!!! I don't think anyone is implying that Dakota should be sheltered from the fact that rape of children occurs by stating they thought she was too young to be involved in this kind of drama........duh!!! So many of you have just missed the point altogether with your long, detailed rantings - get a life!!!!!! This is a child whose parents decided that she should be in the movie industry long before she was 'Mature' so to speak, and this is just a movie made to make money.........keep it in perspective
I fear for any child who is put in a position of portraying this kind of a role. I have heard of adult women who suffered rape and took years to recover emotionally so how can a child of any age handle it any better?
With concern and respect for the actress and her parents.
Charles K. Black
The only solution is for us all to consult with Pat Robertson.
Amen to that!!!!!!
Duh yourself! Stick to generalizations, it's much safer that way. Don't bother figuring out what you mean by 'too young'. At what age would she not be too young? What's your formula for this?
I'm just tired of mindless reactions. Oh, and this one is classic: 'She shouldn't be portraying rape, and rape shouldn't be happening.' But it IS, Blanche, it IS!! Wouldn't we all like a perfect world. Too bad this country is tainted by disgusting hypocrisy. Europeans love us - we can't even handle bare boobies on TV.
Your rantings aren't any better than all the rest. Like someone said, keep this in perspective - it's just a movie - why get so worked up over it - who cares!!!! It doesn't sound like it will get picked up anyway - someone smarter than all of us decided it isn't worth it. If it does get out there, go see it or not - it's a free country yet. Some people like to be entertained by 'garbage', some don't!!!!!
It's as simple as this, folks. A movie was to be made.....the role was offered to (mature) Miss Fanning.......parents let her decide (questionable)........she's an actress......she'll make lots of money..... keep her name out there.....it hasn't gotten good reviews for various reasons..... Miss Fanning doesn't like this (too bad).....it isn't keeping with how everyone always thought she was just 'so sweet' and personable and gushed all over her..........well, welcome to the real world.....the ADULT world!!!!! Controversy has always accompanied the film industry. Her parents surely went into this with their eyes wide open, so they shouldn't be surprised at the price that has to be paid..........didn't they inform their daughter, or hasn't she been exposed to an 'educational' movie so she can learn........................!!!
Is a movie the only way Miss Fanning will be aware of what is happening out there.........gimme a break!!!
Ok, let me break it down for everyone...
The little girl is an actress and was featured in a film, among many others. She makes loads of money and loves what she does, as do her parents. Who wouldn't love to see their child to be such a success at such a young age.
Whether her life ends up in shambles or not will have nothing to do with this particular role. Odds are, she'll be a great success and lead a happy and satisfying life.
But let us examine YOUR lives. I could be jumping into conclusions here, but I'm fairly certain you're all a bunch of losers with nothing better to do than post your little ramblings on the internet as that's the only way, tinny as it is, for your voices to be heard.
You've never been in Ms. Fanning's or her parents' situation, so how could you possibly know what's good or bad for her? Your lives seem rather pointless, so what do you attribute the meaninglessness of your life to? Why are your lives so mediocre?
Finally, here's something for you all to think about. If your snot nosed brat was ever offered the very same role, next to other movie stars, you'd ooze with joy and jump at the opportunity.
Please don't tell me that's not true, I just ate!
Precisely. All you morons just shut up and keep your asinine opinions to yourself - including you. I got yer perspective right here.
Don't you talk to 'to- to- to charlie brown' like that. I happen to agree with his point of view.
Here are the facts to consider:
- We're all a pack of losers
- Most of us haven't changed our underwear in weeks
- The highlight of our day is seconds for dinner and, hopefully, dessert
- Our cow-shaped body makes us despise anyone with physical or intellectual prowes
- Our dogs eat Purina
- The very things we criticize are what we desire most in this world. Seeing others enjoy them makes them seem painfully unattainable, so we resort to brooding.
This has gone horribly off topic. What a mess. Let's get back to the issue at hand, calmly: Dakota Fanning is far, far too young. She really should be older. Older is better. What nerve, to be young, and flaunt it, even. Old. Old. Have you ever thought about what a weird word 'old' is? Say it a dozen times in a row. It's freaking me out. Don't EVEN get me started on 'young'.
Well, I believe you've hit the nerve of this very debate.
You are absolutely right, she is far too young. I looked at that picture and immediately ran to the mirror. The bags under my eyes; my chest, looking like a pair of worn out socks with a single orange stuffed in each of them... is it any wonder my husband refuses to portray that scene (which shall remain unnamed to prevent the posting from being removed)? It has been ages, people!!! And I've had it.
That's digusting. i am a florida orang grower.
You sound just like my husband, who happens to be a Florida orange grower as well. That's where I got the 'orange in the sock' imagery - he says it all the time! I still love him though, so these babies are HIS oranges in the socks, whether he likes them or not.
Your Talkback on this Story