Discussion List for campus-based and allied personnel working to end gender-based violence on campus.

[<>]

 I wondered how long it was going to take before someone brought this up
on the list-serv. I haven't seen either movie..that said..here are my
thoughts:
1. Why are we wasting time getting in a huff over a movie-i want to say
to every journalist and person they've interviewed-get upset about the
real crime that's happening in the real world-use your energy to stop
that.
2. Are we re-victimizing the survivors of these crimes? If it were me
I'd be considerably upset that we're worried how acting out these crimes
affects actresses who were prepared well in advance about what was going
on versus the people who had no choice in their real victimization.
3. No one has said anything about the actors playing 'perpetrator roles'
aren't they psychologically affected too? Once again victim blame finds
another route to bare its ugly head.
4. And as for child porn advocates being able to use this to back up
what they consider 'art'-it hasn't worked for murder, arson, robbery or
any other crime that I can think of.
5. Praise should be given to those in the film industry willing to make
us think and reflect upon our society- sexual assault will never be
entertainment. But who said film had to entertain us? 
6. It takes a lot of brave courageous people (like us on this list-serv)
to be able to continue this fight against horrific crimes. There's no
doubt in my mind that you all have faces and names that will never leave
your mind. We all fight for justice with the tools we have-let's give
this filmmaker the benefit of the doubt. There may be one person in that
audience who will leave and join our ranks and for that we should be
grateful.

Rebecca Harrington


-----Original Message-----
From: 

[mailto:]
 On Behalf Of

Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 7:15 PM
To: 

Subject: Re: SAPC Digest, Vol 670,Issue 2-oped on two new films-hounddog
and little miss sunshine**Possible SPAM**

CHILD RAPE IS NEVER 'ART'

In two very different new films, the issue of child sex abuse rears its
ugly head, raising troubling questions about whether we are moving
forward or backward in the fight to protect children from sex crimes and
exploitation. 

In the movie Hounddog, prepubescent child actress Dakota Fanning plays
out a scene where she is sexually assaulted and raped by an adult male.
The images are so disturbing it reportedly took the filmmaker ten years
to finish the project because she refused to cut the scene from the
film.  The obvious implication is that in the past ten years, something
happened that pushed us over the line of social tolerance for conduct
that should never serve as entertainment.

At roughly the same time that Hounddog came out, Hollywood gave us
Little Miss Sunshine, a very different film dealing with the same topic
and starring an even younger actress named Abigail Breslin.  Breslin
literally performed a strip show in the film (though not to the point of
revealing naked private parts) acting out behavior that, as with the
conduct on display in Hounddog, no child should engage in for real.

Two films, each using a child actress to dramatize harmful behavior,
caused very different results because while Little Miss Sunshine
condemns child sex abuse - Hounddog makes it seem like "normal"
eroticism.

In Hounddog, whether the child actress was in fact sexually assaulted in
order to make the film remains unclear because while there are no
explicit visual depictions of criminal penetration, the images raise
serious questions about what was left on the cutting room floor.  And
whatever the child went through in reality, the fact that the film
includes a scene where the child is involved in mutual masturbation is
more than enough evidence the movie is oriented toward the idea that
children are "naturally" sexual.  This supports an erotic rather than
criminal perspective on the nature of child rape.   

To make matters worse, the film gives all child pornographers a leg up
on the argument that their work is legitimate "art".   Think about it
from the "camel's nose in the tent" perspective.  What pornographer
wouldn't cite Hounddog as evidence that it isn't necessarily "harmful"
to make movies showing children being raped?  When the people engaged in
sexual behavior on film are adults, it's acceptable to argue about where
to draw the line between eroticism and harm.  But do we really want
Hollywood helping child pornographers create gray areas around the
sexual abuse of children?  It's tough enough to beat back a
multi-billion dollar industry without movie producers creating
reasonable doubt in the minds of all potential jurors by selling child
rape as art.

By contrast, Little Miss Sunshine is a gem of a film that depicts a
little girl acting out a strip tease during the talent portion of a
beauty pageant.  Parading around in swimsuits and garish makeup, other
little girls are celebrated for their seductive performances and
suggestive behavior.  But Abigail Breslin mocks the whole lot of them
when she starts to strip, making it clear to the audience that only
idiots fail to see through thinly-veiled entertainment propaganda that
normalizes the idea of children as sex objects.

Too bad Little Miss Sunshine couldn't have dropped a filmmaker's
footnote referencing Hounddog as propaganda Exhibit #1. 

Maybe Hounddog will lose tons of money, Little Miss Sunshine will win
tons of awards and society will be transformed.   But I doubt it.

More likely the actions of one rogue filmmaker will lead to more
inappropriate films, fewer protections for children and more sexual
abuse and exploitation of society's most vulnerable in the name of
profit -- oops, I mean art.

Wendy Murphy
617-422-7410
_______________________________________________
SAPC mailing list

https://list.mail.virginia.edu/mailman/listinfo/sapc