OK, I just posted earlier, my complaint against liberals who want to regulate every facet of the lives of free Americans. Now it's the fundamentalists' turn to experience the sting of my whip...Raleigh | Citing the controversy surrounding the Dakota Fanning film Hounddog, the leader of the state Senate Republicans says he wants the government to review scripts before cameras start rolling in North Carolina.
That system, said state Sen. Phil Berger, R-Rockingham, would apply only to films seeking the state's lucrative filmmaker incentive, which refunds as much as 15 percent of what productions spend in North Carolina from the state treasury.
"Why should North Carolina taxpayers pay for something they find objectionable?" said Berger, who is having proposed legislation drafted.
It seems North Carolina's fundies want to have their cake and eat it too. They want to give filmmakers incentive to use their state to make movies but then they want censorship rights over content. I'll bet 99% of the people with their shorts all in a bunch over the Dakota Fanning rape scene haven't even seen it yet. Their knee-jerk outrage probably comes from the mass e-mail they received at work from their sister's boss's cousin's neighbor whose boyfriend is the second assistant to the key grip on the set, who swears there were child-safety and obscenity laws broken in the making of the scene.
Please!!! What did they expect when they invited Hollywood liberals to make movies in their state? The problem here is you have a bunch of irate soccer moms whose daughters worship Dakota Fanning, but who can't go see this movie because of the subject matter.
This reminds me of when I was a teenager and a weatherman in Atlanta, Guy Sharp, out of the blue called for a state-wide boycott of Proctor&Gamble products because there is a mysterious crescent moon and like 7 stars on their labelling(look on the can of Comet under your sink and check it out). Without any evidence more than a rumor flying around his church, he claimed it was satanic symbolism or something or other.
I'm not saying that Dakota Fanning's rape scene isn't very disturbing and uncomfortable to watch...I'm certain that it is. But if it's integral to the story, not gratuitous, and doesn't violate child endangerment laws, which I understand is the case here, really, as conservatives shouldn't we be willing to allow expression, even if it's disturbing and uncomfortable?
2 comments:
My only question is why would anyone want to see a movie that shows a 12 year get raped any way. Take your $ 8 and give it to the mission. Feed African children, just do something worthwhile. Then maybe those hollyweird filmmakers would stay on decent subject matter. Elvis had a sick side, but I do not need to be reminded of it. He is dead let him rest in peace, not with a piece.
I don't think this movie is specifically about the rape of a 12 year old, but that particular scene, from what I've heard, is integral to the story in a larger sense.
Look, I understand that it would be a difficult scene for some to watch depending on how it was done, but Dakota Fanning is an actress. I think the outrage is more about "Dakota Fanning" getting raped where the soccer moms and their daughters can't believe she would abandon her traditional kid-friendly movie roles and do a serious role.
She's an actress, and there's nothing wrong with doing a serious scene. I'm sure she doesn't want to get typecast as a Disney-style movie actress, no matter how angry and resentful it makes the soccer moms and their daughters.
Post a Comment