Dakota Fanning Endures Sex Abuse, Turns To Elvis For Help
If you’re like me and found Dakota Fanning to be disgustingly cute in all of her movie performances up to this point, prepare to have that image shattered by a controversial upcoming movie called Hounddog. The movie’s synopsis sounds innocent enough: “a precocious, troubled girl finds a safe haven in the music and movement of Elvis Presley”. But according to Cinematical, the movie, written and directed by Deborah Kampmeier, has been scaring off a lot of investors because it involves an explicit scene where Fanning is stripped naked and sexually abused. Yikes! My stomach is churning just thinking about it. You’ve really gotta wonder what kind of parents would put their kid up for such a role. I mean, sure it’s guaranteed to get her an Oscar nod, but is that really something a 12 year old kid should be concerned about? Something about this whole deal just seems horribly unsettling, even for someone who isn’t a “Fanning fanatic”.
Comments (48)
IF true, I think its fucking disgusting to exploit a young girl like that. Is it necessary to go as far as nudity and implication of sexual abuse? I understand its more shocking, but really, is it necessary?
This is crossing the ethical line, IF it happens the way it has been stated. Where is it going to stop? What’s next a movie about paedophiles or animal sex on screen?
Hollywood has reached a new low.
Posted by Bassmasta-Baychuk on July 21st, 2006they won’t be able to show her naked on camera, Baychuk….
Posted by manic panda on July 21st, 2006I hope not.
Posted by Bassmasta-Baychuk on July 22nd, 2006you don’t have to *hope*, dude, movie companies generally don’t change laws just to get a film made, and this is hardly the first movie about child sex abuse.
Posted by manic panda on July 23rd, 2006I’m all for movies about the destruction of things beautiful.
Posted by Henrik on July 23rd, 2006Even if they completely destroyed all the prints of Dakota being stripped naked, beaten and molested, it still wouldn’t alter the fact that it was performed in the first place. Live set, live crew, live actors… live little girl. That it’s been done before is irrelevant. That it’s been done here, sexually exploiting the most popular and beloved child actress on the planet, is revolting to the highest degree.
Posted by Steve on July 29th, 2006Sexually exploiting? You do realize that she is not *actually* getting raped right? It’s a movie!
Not everything can be sugar-coated and saturated in Gummi Bear juice. If you have a story to tell which revolves around the rape of a young girl, why would you not try and get the most popular child actress available?
Besides, she could always have said no. I’m sure she has a brain.
Posted by Henrik on July 29th, 2006Now I’m going to get the old “it’s just a movie” routine. Try to comprehend. A live child was used on a movie set where she was stripped naked and filmed in a graphic sex scene. Live cast, live film crew, live little girl… and in a film aimed at live audiences with the intent of profit.
The fact that she wasn’t actually raped (duh!) is beside the point. All that does is reduce the crime from “Child Molestation” to “Child Exploitation”… which is also a felony in any state that I know of.
The arguement that she was compliant with her role is, again, pointless. That is a decision that no child can make; legally, ethically or biologically. Those who made it for her are criminals of the lowest order and undeserving to walk free among us.
Posted by Steve on July 29th, 2006As people get older they tend to give children less credit.
SHe’s not an infant. 12 years old. Obviously she is aware of what sex is, why rape would be bad, and that doing something like this is a bit risky.
What’s the definition of child exploitation? I’ll go on a limb and assume that no law is being broken in the making of this film.
Who cares if everybody involved with the film is live? (duh!) That’s the case with most movies, how does that change the fact that it’s still only being done to entertain and educate. I doubt a bunch of studioheads sat down and went “How can we make alot of money?” and then came up with raping Dakota Fanning…
To me this seems like a movie that actually has a story to tell. It does not seem like a star-vehicle for Dakota Fanning, or as a major blockbuster. And like I said before, if you as a director and an artist have a story to tell about child molestation or whatever you want to call it, why would you NOT try and get the most popular child around?
Did it ever occur to anybody that maybe her parents felt that the story was worth telling as well? I’m sure that for anybody to even finance a movie like this, it would have to be a story worth telling, since if it is bad nobody will want to be known as the people who raped that little girl.
Posted by Henrik on July 30th, 2006Kids may seem “tough” and resilient, but the great possibility of an after shock from it would come about 20 yrs later when she’s telling her psychologist about the situation and how she had no control….hence why she substance abuses so she can “forget”.
Stuff like that is wrong. They need a 12 yr old to play the part? Get an adult woman who looks twelve then (Ie Jodi Foster in Taxi Driver)
Posted by Bassmasta-Baychuk on July 30th, 2006It’s a bad example, cause Foster was 14 when she played the prostitute in Taxi Driver.
Posted by Henrik on July 30th, 2006Hmmm, I thought she was older than that. Either way, its wrong in Fanning’s case. She’s still a kid.
Posted by Bassmasta-Baychuk on July 30th, 2006How about just problem children who grew up too fast like Drew Barrymore, Michael Jackson and the the Diff’rent Strokes kids?
Posted by Bassmasta-Baychuk on July 30th, 2006She may not be an infant, Henrik, but she’s still a child. It doesn’t matter how “precocious” she may be (or “old soul” or “12 going on 40″ or the rest of that Hollywood gibberish). You can only stretch that so far before you run right up against the laws of nature like a brick wall.
I have no doubt that the lawyers will find the right legal loopholes to allow the final edited version to be presented. That’s what they do. It does not, however, in any way edit out the fact that what was done on that set was a terrible moral wrong.
And once again, the fact that Jodie Foster did it and got away with it is no justification at all. It’s just another sad, sorry chapter in Hollywoood history that, because it went unpunished, has led to this one. That’s why these things must be condemned and stopped. Otherwise, more child actors will be led down this terrible road to self-abasement.
Posted by Steve on July 30th, 2006I didn’t say Jodie Foster justified it.
Beating a dead horse by now. It’s just that dismissing this prematurely seems so uninformed to me.
Posted by Henrik on July 30th, 2006Steve and I are on the same wavelength.
Posted by Bassmasta-Baychuk on July 30th, 2006Henrik: Nobody wishes more than I do to learn that all this was a lie, a hoax, or a misunderstanding. That’s why I’ve been keeping an ear to every possible news source hoping to hear something from Full Moon Films, the Osbrink Agency or even the Fannings themselves. There’s been nothing. No confirmation, no refutation; silence for a week and a half after this dismal story came to press. This, in addition to the appparent acceptance of the story by Hollywood watchers and the record of Kampmeier’s kid-sex obsession in her films… all this together adds up to an extremely disturbing picture.
Posted by Steve on July 31st, 2006I didn’t mean that it was not true. But just because you find something offensive does not mean that it’s not worthy to put on film.
Obviously it happens in real life, so why pretend like it doesn’t.
Posted by Henrik on July 31st, 2006To pretend like it doesn’t happen is to accept defeat. I prefer to take a moral stance on an issue than ignore it and be regarded as weak.
That’s just me though
Posted by Bassmasta-Baychuk on July 31st, 2006And I think what they are doing with this movie is taking a moral stand.
I don’t think the movie will endorse or encourage the raping of young women.
So maybe we’ll reach agreement afterall.
Posted by Henrik on July 31st, 2006Henrik:
I don’t think there’s any sort of “moral stand” involved. You have only to look at the kind of movies that Deborah Kampmeier has made in the past. She is obsessed with dark themes…including underage sex. That’s why investors keep pulling out of her films, once they discover the true nature of them.
Obviously, she had no problem with recruiting the most popular (and dumbest) child actress on the planet to abase herself in a cheap sex drama. People like her apparently enjoy bringing trash to the culture… for profit.
Posted by Steve on August 2nd, 2006Since my last posting, it has been reliably reported that local, state and even federal authorities in North Carolina have been looking into the case for possible violations. The testimony of disaffected production crewman plus their copies of the screenplay indicate that the NC law entitled “Sexual Exploitation of a Minor” plus Title 18 of the United States Code may well have been violated. Now: All we need is a prosecutor on any level who’s willing to fight Hollywood and a no-doubt sympathetic media with all their vast resources.
Posted by Steve on August 21st, 2006theres a way to portray sexual abuse of children without showing it…
in Forrest Gump you simply suggest it, which in ways was creepier and sadder than actually seeing anything.
in Storytelling and Happiness, these sort of things are a hell of a lot more awkward but at the same time its questionable if its really exploitative.
Hell, even scenes in Squid and the Whale of a child wiping his come on a girls locker is a little out there….
I dont think very well of the idea of her actually being stripped naked and shown as such to do the scene, but as with anything I’d have to understand the context before flat out declaring it pornography… how do you define ’sexual exploitation’? whats the line between acting and a fantasy to you? whats the purpose of the movie?
I have to say I dont really agree with your ‘fight Hollywood and sympathetic media’ statement. This director has only one other film which was not known, I highly doubt you’re going to find the Weinsteins running to her side and Susan Sarandon making speeches, and I dont think any media would editorialize on this unless they actually knew something (save maybe Nancy Grace, but she’s a presumptuous nutball)
Posted by Goon on August 21st, 2006But I’d like to bring up another thing… not defending THIS specific example of course if its as explicit as Steve seems to think it is….
but how come putting children in movies with sexual situations bothers people so much more than inserting them into the middle of a horror movie or action movie where 200 people die? like the child sitting in the middle of a gunfight in “face/off” even… I dont like kids much so I dont care to step in and be all that horrified, and I’ve done enough parent bashing for 10 people in my life, but I just find it strange that once again, its the sex stories that make up such huge huge huge stories but the violence ones dont raise a peep….
theres an exception though. The awkward bathing “holy shit” scene in the Nicole Kidman movie “birth” raised a lot of stink overseas but not much here. Either something was distracting us or it slipped under the radar… I’d like to ask Steve what he thought of that one, if he saw it.
Posted by Goon on August 21st, 2006Dear Goon:
The sexual exploitation of a minor is defined in North Carolina State Law under NCGS 14-190-16(a)(4) and in Title 18 of the United States Code.
In both cases, they describe the use of a child in a sexual context. Real nudity doesn’t even have to occur (although semi-nudity, at least, WAS used in “Hounddog”). That it is presented as such is enough. That sex involving a minor is in any way depicted is enough as well. That is done on at least three (maybe five) occasions in the movie.
You may be right about Hollywood not fighting it out in court this time. Since Paramount dumped Tom Cruise’s company yesterday, it seems to indicate that the studios are feeling the heat from the public about their excesses. I hope so. Nevertheless, rested assured that a number of columnists and liberal activist groups will weigh in if it goes to court.
By the way, putting children directly into scenes of sex or graphic violence is wrong. Often, screen violence can be sanitized to some extent. That’s why violence is not stressed as much. There are many degrees of conflict. Sex involving children cannot be sanitized. It is perversion of the worst sort.
Posted by Steve on August 24th, 2006“Nevertheless, rested assured that a number of columnists and liberal activist groups will weigh in if it goes to court.”
It would be easier to listen to you if you didnt go to such eye rolling statements as this. Go take it to PABAAH, it seems your campaign is based on politics when you say shit like this, looking to take one case as an indictment of the film industry as a whole, when its clear this is by no means a major hollywood production. at all. it seems a given that someone would at some time end up not knowing the law and breaking it, even if their art came from good intentions such as portraying how awful abuse is. ‘perversion’ is subjective, and the idea of depicting abuse as something bad where no sexual arousal is intended for the viewer, is certainly not perversion to me. i definitely question the extent to which this director intends to show it, and especially question Dakota Fanning for agreeing to it, but without intent by definition it is not pornography.
i further question your motives as you mischaracterize and gloat about the nature of Cruise’s recent dumpage. I’m glad to see him be brought down a peg too, but it has nothing to do with morality and has everything to do with the fact that since he’s overexposed in the media and seems flat out crazy to people, that they dont want to pay to see him for another 2 hours.
Until I see it, I will not know this supposed ’sexual context’ – I think you’re jumping the ‘perversion’ gun way too quick, and assume the word ’sexual’ automatically means arousal for the viewer. i hope you’re not dumb enough to assume the existance of this scene will brainwash people to go out and rape 12 year olds.
Without seeing the scene yourself you are all gung ho hoping for a prosecutor to step in and legislate. You seem to have a lot of faith in others’ subjective opinion of ‘perversion’ here, a little too eager to see “hollywood” pay. I’d ask you not to bring up some ‘think of the children’ leverage again lest you be willing to sit through a long winded rant from me about my subjective opinion on the perversion of telling children that they will burn in hell if they dont accept Jesus.
Posted by Goon on August 25th, 2006I agree with Goon.
Bottom line for me though, is that everybody agreed this should be done, prepared it, then went and did it, without anybody complaining.
Obviously the people involved don’t think it’s wrong, and since its art, who are you to say that it is?
Like I said before: Obviously these things happen in real life, so why should movies shy away from it.
Ultimately, you can choose not to go see the movie. Don’t push your views. The law is meant to protect, not to censor.
Posted by Henrik on August 25th, 2006Let me bring up a more recent example – a film that IS getting a push from critics and “hollywood” – Little Miss Sunshine – a movie i enjoyed but not as much as some, but as it currently stands is a potential Oscar candidate for at least screenplay…
towards the end of the film there is a childrens beauty pageant, something that happens all across the US and Canada, often even run by religious organizations, local Christian groups that is – where 7 and 8 year olds are dolled up in tonnes of makeup and bikinis. thats not sexualization of children?
the movie actually mocks this practice, and goes over the top by having the main character child performing a sort of mock striptease to Rick James’ “Super Freak”, which had been choreographed by her grandfather. This whole scene is basically satire, over the top, comedic, in no way meant to arouse anyone whatsoever. But by Steve’s standard, it would be ‘perversion’.
One of the films mentioned in this thread deals with sexualization of children with seriousness and dread, the other with comedy and satire. Neither is meant to get anyone off, but when in the example of the former, we hear about the law getting involved and ‘perversion’ and such. Why? Because there might be nudity… again I probably have to state just to be clear I dont think the nudity is necessary.
However I think back to being 10 years old and having a Wilson Phillips CD where in the liner notes there is a photo of the 3 girls at the age of 10, topless – adult contemporary music. If released today would Steve be calling the cops?
Posted by Goon on August 25th, 2006Alright Goon, let’s get a few things straight:
Posted by Steve on August 27th, 20061. It doesn’t matter that “Hounddog” is not a “major” production. The effect of it’s contents will be far out of proportion to it’s $4.5 million budget. Hollywood’s major studios, already reeling from bad publicity and shrinking revenues, will be impacted. They will have to either support or condemn it openly. The ACLU WILL support it and that’s where the politics will begin.
2. Decent people aren’t too liable to see this picture. Any who do aren’t likely to be “brainwashed” into pedophilia… idiot! Those who ARE perverts, inclined to perversion or are young and impressionable WILL be affected. That’s what porn does… and this IS pornography. Read the legal definition and then read the script.
3. No prosecutor has “to step in and legislate”. Both federal and North Carolina state laws cover this sort of thing in great detail. They define the sexual abuse and exploitation of children in great detail. It’s only a matter of enforcing the laws that now exist. There is nothing “subjective” about it. Nor is ignorance of the law EVER and excuse.
4. Hollywood is the focal point of the popular culture. Having seen what’s become of that “culture” since porn was legalized, I’d say that the film industry has a lot to answer for.
5. Once again, the fact that other films have gotten away with exploiting children does not justify anything. It only confirms my case that Hollywood will continue to push back the boundaries of decency until they are stopped.
6. The exploitation of children, by law, does not require actual nudity or sex. That they are in any way depicted, even if edited out in the final version, is enough.
7. Children’s pagents have, in all too many cases, become a matter of exploitation. I never forgot what happened to JonBenet Ramsey… or why. Apparently you have.
8. Your remarks about Jesus and Christianity tell me all I need to know about your personal character.
1. no they won’t
2. blaming the art for a dumbass who cant tell the difference between fantasy and reality is lame.
3. give me a ring when something actually happens. until then you’re being hopefully assumptuous.
4. anti-porn is the mark of someone who hates individual rights and choice
5. screw your sense of ‘decency’ – the Bible, just passages away from its anti-gay moments, advises to take your unruly
children to the edge of town and stone them.
6. we’ll just see about that now, won’t we?
7. so do you support LMS making fun of it, or is it pornography to even satire it? its so Christian these days to have no
sense of context in regards to anything. everything is black and white, its like the Donnie Darko ‘fear and love’ scene – the mark of a dull mind.
8. The Bible is often flat out disgusting, and full of bad advice I doubt you follow. Have you sold all your possessions and given the money to the poor? The Bible says to do so, and that God will take care of you after. But of course Christians dont do this because even they know thats retarded, and arent willing to show their faith. Do you prevent women from speaking aloud in church? It would be dumb to label your child as a liberal or conservative, likewise using fake stories of hellfire and brimstone, using fear to control them, labeling them as a part of a belief simply because the parents are, a belief with texts they are too young to comprehend let alone read. that’s a disgusting practice in my eyes. That’s abuse.
i need not detail any more, there’s no arguing with someone as out there as you are.
Posted by Goon on August 27th, 2006i’ll let your sandy vagina keep quacking away on this thread without me. God bless.
Goon: If your very name didn’t say it all, then your obscene and depraved commentary would. Beyond that, I need say nothing. To anyone with the smallest spark of decency, your own words condemn you.
Posted by Steve on August 27th, 2006get lost, asshole. you yourself are an atheist about 99.9% of all religions and gods. I do one tenth of a percent further and say none of us know what is real. Christinsanity is lame and so are you.
Posted by Goon on August 27th, 2006AAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
This post turned fucking hilarious.
Posted by Henrik on August 28th, 2006I dont mind being a jerk to someone who obviously doesnt care about film, and is just trolling us to push his agenda.
Posted by Goon on August 28th, 2006And the world is happier because of it…
Posted by Henrik on August 28th, 2006Goon:
I thought you said you were leaving the blogsite… “sandy vagina” and all! Oh, well. Once again, you have nothing but aimless, hate-filled ravings to offer.
By the way, it’s not films as a whole I object to. It’s just those pleasant little efforts that show children as sex objects, abuse them on the set in the process and endanger all the others by getting away with it in spite of volumes of laws that were passed to prevent that very thing.
There’s nothing sacred about the film industry. The whole rotten thing can crash and burn for all I care. Children, however, are sacred. If you can’t see that, then you BELONG in Goonland… right along with the lowlifes who conceived and spawned an obscenity like “Hounddog”.
Posted by Steve on September 2nd, 2006“Children, however, are sacred.”
HAHAHAHAAHHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA
Posted by Goon on September 2nd, 2006HAHAHAAHHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAAHHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHHAHAHAHHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAH
AHAAHHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAAHHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAH
AHAHAHAHHAHAHA
Once again, Goon, you define yourself better than I ever could.
Posted by Steve on September 3rd, 2006I should hope so.
Children are amoral little beasts, unhinged selfishness and amazingly cruel to one another. Its like you’ve completely forgotten what childhood is actually like.
Posted by Goon on September 3rd, 2006Goon, was it that bad for you?
I wouldn’t want to bring kids into our f***ed up society that we live in.
Posted by Baychuk on September 3rd, 2006at times it could be bad for me, but it was everyone….
whether it was the time everyone gathered in the playgound and watched one of the kids beat a birds nest full of injured birds to death with a bad, to the time they chased the Pakistani kid up the catwalk (you know, at Sheridan on Lake/Linwell) where the 7th graders and held him over the side of the bridge by his ankles, where he very nearly and could have easily had died had his laces not been so tightly tied…. the kids that bought the pair of boxing gloves and secretly organized a fight club in the woods… and i’m not even covering what was done daily to the fat kids. Hell even Craig, one of the most popular kids in our grade 5 class, was chased home by several others and had the shit beat out of him in his own backyard. all this in the lovely suburbs of the North End of St. Catharines.
and I’m just covering grade 3 – 6. if i include grade 7 and 8 i get to mention the kids that gangbanged the fattest girl in town (her name was Pam, she made the news at one point for running away with an 19 year old drug dealer or something for 3 days, because of the timing, they thought it was related to the Kristen French/Mahaffy/Terri Anderson shit). The did this and bragged, claiming it was done so they would lose their virginity first and that the rest of us were “faggots”.
Me? I got teased because I was part time at the gifted class across town, and I had some of my stuff stolen… certainly not great memories but in context I got off easy.
of all the fat kids I remember scarred for life by the other kids, Pat G stands out, who was chased up a tall jungle gym by people teasing and one threatening to kick his ass. he hung by his hands from the top but couldnt hold on, as he let go he kicked his feet too much and got his foot partially caught in the bars down the way. he fell awkward and we literally heard his back snap.
So yeah, I dont want to hear any of this bullshit of the innocence of children. And I’ve worked retail a number of years too, I’ve seen how horrible so many other kids can be. The toddlers that have knowingly tossed dangerous objects at me, the 4 year olds who only know the words “mommy” and “i want it” – to the way children that cant talk fiercely shriek when things they want are not given to them – the things that are bad about adults I believe are built into children genetically. greed, hate, etc – its a nature vs. nurture debate, and I’m not going to divide up what percent is what, but I do believe most of it is built in, and that children are anything but ’sacred’
anyone who themselves cant provide a laundry list of the crazy shit that happened at their elementary schools was never actually there.
Posted by Goon on September 4th, 2006oh, another great memory.
in grade 5 there was a cadre of girls that developed early, and they knew it. and it became their hobby to send the ‘uglier’ boys that everyone made fun of ‘love letters’ with lipstick on them. they had somehow developed a sense of sarcasm early as well, heh. the hearts of everyone who received one of these letters, well, died. I was lucky enough not to get one but I think I was nervous every day during the month they were doing this. My best friend got one and I still remember it vividly, the wording of it as one of the cruelest things I’ve ever seen in my life by any standard.
Posted by Goon on September 4th, 2006I recently started work as a teacher’s substitute in a school in central copenhagen, and you won’t believe the stuff that goes on daily in that place.
Sometimes it amazes me that some kids actually survive and create Microsoft.
Posted by Henrik on September 4th, 2006Its all unfortunate and my wife can tell you of her bullying experience that still haunt her in someways. She didn’t want to cause trouble by fighting back because she had dickheaded teachers blaming her for stuff she didn’t do. THATS FUCKED UP! Adults make HUGE impressions on kids and some prey upon the weaker ones, like fellow bullying classmates.
As for myself, there was good and bad, but mostly from a father who was hard on me. He went through a lot when he was growing up in Eastern Europe and probably expected the same of me, but he has to realize there were no wars involving nazis and commies in Canada.
As for bullying…kids have tried but I usually fought back or the other kids weren’t into it so I was left alone with that. My KID problem is that I had trouble fitting in fully. I was never in any clique, was a drifter, got along with many, but never fit it. Ah well. There must be a reason we’re being tested.
Another good saying about having kids, is that you really are raising strangers. So its another test to have to raise them right and be challenged by who they truly are. Its tough decision for sure. Plus they’re expensive.
If I have kids, I want to make sure I’m debt free and emotionally available to guide them through life the best I can, regardless how they turn out.
Posted by Baychuk on September 4th, 2006“I recently started work as a teacher’s substitute in a school in central copenhagen, and you won’t believe the stuff that goes on daily in that place.”
my sister thought similarly to Steve about children, and went to school to become a social worker/guidance counsellor type person… and oh man, has she ever come around fast. been in it two years and she’s realized she had to drop that attitude fast to actually continue to live. the shit she sees and hears, not just about their parents but also the kids themselves (she’s currently at what is basically a prison for kids) is amazing.
Posted by Goon on September 4th, 2006Maybe YOUR childhood was like that, Goon. It would explain much about the kind of “adult” you’ve become. Mine wasn’t. And I can tell you for sure that the children in my family are loved and properly raised. That’s what keeps them from becoming “amoral little beasts”. Obviously, your own parents failed miserably in their ultimate test of adulthood.
Maybe that also explains your long-winded litany of hate against children in general and, in particular, the ones who “bullied” that “gifted child” way back when. Could it be that it was you who was the arrogant, unprincipled little punk who provoked it…hummm?
And Henrik: If you try to raise children in an evironment where there are no social standards, no codes of decency (like-gasp!-Christianity), respect for authority or responsible authority to BE respected, then wild animals is what you’ll get every time. Children are sacred, as I said, and if for no other reason than that they are the future. If you fail to nuture and guide them correctly, then you end up with a socialist nightmare such as Europe is fast becoming.
Posted by Steve on September 10th, 2006Dakota Fanning was NOT stripped naked in the movie. The rape scene was shot in segments mostly face shots. It’s a little different role for Dakota for sure, but not as bad as The Exorcist scene with Linda Blair and a cross! All the runors would have everyone thinking it though.
Posted by Redman on November 3rd, 2008It was apparently orginaly alot worse though and had to be edited
Posted by Drew on November 3rd, 2008Leave a Reply