ROTTEN TOMATOES: Sundance News: "Chicago 10" Disappoints; Dakota Fanning's "Hounddog" Violating Child Pornography Laws? "Crazy Love" Causes Bidding War

Sundance News: "Chicago 10" Disappoints; Dakota Fanning's "Hounddog" Violating Child Pornography Laws? "Crazy Love" Causes Bidding War

by Senh Duong | January 21, 2007

Discuss Article | Blog Article | Email To A Friend

Since the Sundance Film Festival started two days ago, three films have already drawn extra media attention. "Chicago 10," Brett Morgen's highly anticipated follow-up to "The Kid Stays in the Picture," disappointed critics; "Hounddog," starring Dakota Fanning, might face a child pornography violation; and "Crazy Love," with its wild and disturbing love story, generated a bidding war between indie distributors. What will the rest of the week bring?

This year's opening film "Chicago 10," Brett Morgen's film about the Chicago Seven trial during the turbulent late 60’s, disappointed critics. Following his previous critically acclaimed hit "The Kid Stays in the Picture," which scored 91% on the Tomatometer, critics came to Morgen’s film with high expectations. Although the film’s Tomatometer is currently at 80% based on only five reviews, it is expected to drop as more critics pitch in their opinions. RT's editor Tim Ryan enjoyed the film's "smooth and vibrantly colorful" animation and archival footage, but thought, "it ultimately feels a bit more like a history lesson." So far, that seemed to be the consensus among critics at the festival.

Another film drawing criticism is the Dakota Fanning film, "Hounddog." Catholic League president Bill Donohue wanted a federal investigation of the film to see if child pornography laws were being violated during shooting. The film contains a graphic rape scene with Fanning, who was twelve at the time of filming. Donohue said he would request First Lady Laura Bush, who just days ago met with first ladies from other countries to discuss a fight against child pornography and pedophilia, to assist him in this matter. "Hounddog" will debut to the public at Sundance on Monday, January 22nd.

One movie did manage to earn more than just good press coverage. According to Hollywood Reporter columnist, Anne Thompson, a bidding war was brewing between ThinkFilm, Netflix, and Magnolia Pictures for "Crazy Love," a documentary about the disturbing love story between Linda Riss and Burt Pugach. In the end, Magnolia Pictures won the domestic theatrical distribution rights.

More to come, live, from Sundance.

Related Items

Movie:	The Kid Stays in the Picture
	Chicago 10
	Hounddog

Celeb:	Brett Morgen
	Dakota Fanning
	Laura Bush

(1-20 of 85 posts) | Reply

bigbrother writes:
on Jan 21 2007 04:42 AM

[b]Child Pornography Laws!?![/b]
Where the heck are Dakota Fannings parents? How the hell do you let your kid be in a film that has a child rape sequence in it?!? This is why so many child stars grow up to be such messed up adults. Someone should get their ass kicked over this. Seriously this makes me throw up a little in my mouth.

(Reply to this)

Mikeal420 writes:
on Jan 21 2007 06:32 AM

In reply to this comment (#853518)
[b]Are you Pat Robertson?[/b]
although the subject matter is disturbing, Dakota Fanning is an actor, and a very professional one considering she is so young, definitely more so than many actors twice her age. To suggest playing a role would warp her later in life is insane- what screws up child actors is the publicity they get and personal matters at home. Look at all the happy roles that child actors played on "Different Strokes". Those were certainly family friendly roles and yet the actors all turned out SCREWED UP

If Laura Bush and the Christian Leagues make a big deal out of this, that would be the biggest blow to Dakota Fanning's feelings, NOT this film!! although it would generate a lot more profit for it

(Reply to this)

mojodaddy writes:
on Jan 21 2007 08:14 AM

I think it's a snake.

(Reply to this)

haelohm writes:
on Jan 21 2007 08:34 AM

[b]umm[/b]
im pretty sure that this thing with the retarded christian league is just a bunch of stupid hooplah. Her parents would not have let her do it if it violated any kind of personal space on Dakotas part, so why the hell would they have an inquiry just because they knew what was happening in the scene? Its just plain stupid.

(Reply to this)

lavatory love machine writes:
on Jan 21 2007 08:35 AM

child pornography laws?
I don't think the actor playing the rapist really had sex with her

(Reply to this)

megan235 writes:
on Jan 21 2007 09:14 AM

i think simulation is illegal when the actor is a minor. how that ties in with pornography laws, not sure...

(Reply to this)

dagreenman18 writes:
on Jan 21 2007 09:46 AM

Who the hell still listens to Bill Donohue when he takes his mouth of Pat Robertsons dick to say something? It may be a graphic rape scene, but it serves an artistic purpose as opposed to smut. point is, stop being a little bitch. it's a movie. grow up.

(Reply to this)

bigbrother writes:
on Jan 21 2007 10:08 AM

In reply to this comment (#853519)
I do agree with you that I hope this isn't blown up into a media spectacle because that would just make money for this guy and as you said put the girl into a terrible situation. That said however I couldn't disagree with you and the other posters more on the other aspects of this. I don't care if she's an actor. She's a child first. Should we let 12 year olds drink, join the military, vote or get married just because they are mature for their age? As for this being art, that's the biggest load of crap I've ever heard. I for one have no desire to see a portrayal of a child being raped I don't give a rat's arse how "artistically" it's protrayed. What possible positive message are they trying to get across here? Child abuse is bad? I think most of us already know that. To the person that said this is just acting and no abuse took place, I know that and I'm not one of those nut jobs who thinks the movies are real or even that TV or the movies should be blamed when people try to replicate scene's at home, but look at it this way. If you had a kid would you think it's healthy in any way to have someone pretend to rape them? Even if the act isn't actually done. I'm willing to concede that as an actress she can PROBABLY not run into that problem and distinguish the difference without problem, but if it's my kid I'm not taking that chance. All in all I still think this is pretty messed up.

(Reply to this)

bigbrother writes:
on Jan 21 2007 10:16 AM

In reply to this comment (#853525)
I'm really not familiar with Bill Donohue or his views, but to your point I disagree with alot of stuff Jesse Jackson AND Bill O'Reilly say, but if one of them had brought this up I'd want it investigated by the proper authorities just in case they were right and something wrong had been done. Regardless of who brings it up it should be investigated. You can't let your opinions of the person bringing the charges blind you to the fact that something wrong might actually have occurred. I'm the first to admit that I may be way off base here and I sincerely hope there's nothing wrong going on here, but if this IS as it's being portrayed I want to make sure it doesn't happen again. Better safe than sorry in my opinion.

(Reply to this)

Ssillississ writes:
on Jan 21 2007 10:51 AM

[b]Wait and See[/b]
All we know right now is that some wako catholic vying for self-promotion is making a stink about what may be nothing at all. Why don't you all reserve judgement until you have a few of the facts?

(Reply to this)

synergyred writes:
on Jan 21 2007 11:25 AM

In reply to this comment (#853528)
I agree. We really shouldn't be making any judgements about this scene until we know more about it.

(Reply to this)

syster01 writes:
on Jan 21 2007 11:42 AM

I know its fashionable to be anti-Catholic or anti-religion in this crowd but why does it matter if the Pope or Roman Polanski brought the charges up? The law and the scene in question could easily be disprove or verify. Its a pretty straight forward law. Until then, please do away with the knee jerk reactions.

(Reply to this)

boxman writes:
on Jan 21 2007 11:57 AM

Child porn is labeled as such because it is meant to draw titilation. Is anyone out there really going to think a dramatized rape involving a minor is going to be shown as soemthing hot and heavy? I imagine the film will show it in a disturbing light, therefore this dramatization can not be viewed as porn. Also, for God's sake, they're acting parts in a story and she willingly took the role. If this counts as child porn then Bill Donahue may want to invesitgate every other episode of Law and Order SVU.

(Reply to this)

bigbrother writes:
on Jan 21 2007 12:11 PM

In reply to this comment (#853531)
You guys are right we should wait before kneejerk reactions. This kind of topic draws knee jerk reactions though. I withdraw my earlier knee jerk condemnation of the parents, but I still have serious doubts about how this could possibly be something positive. Personally I don't care what light it's shown in it seems pretty pointless to me. Like I said before what's going to be the message here that Raping a kid is horrible and wrong, yeah kinda knew that without seeing a scene in a film about it. This is the artistic equivalent of trying to convince someone that shooting yourself in the head is not conducive to a long life. Also don't think just because a 12 year old did something consentually necessarily makes it right. I guess it just would seem very exploitative and wrong to me IF this scene is in any way graphic in nature. It seems like they could handle it off screne as they do in Law and Order.

(Reply to this)

syster01 writes:
on Jan 21 2007 12:19 PM

Boxman ...there is a reason why you don't see a lot of scene depicting a child being explicitly raped ...its against the law to do so.

(Reply to this)

horrorfan666 writes:
on Jan 21 2007 12:46 PM

In reply to this comment (#853518)
who are you to criticise? its a movie, all fake, dont get your panties in a bunch. its Dakota's choice, if she didnt like the movie, and didnt want to do the rape scene, she wouldn't have done the movie. who know's, she could get the academy's attention for being a young girl and doing the movie.

(Reply to this)

Bane Of Anubis writes:
on Jan 21 2007 12:54 PM

In reply to this comment (#853534)
It may be her choice, but if she chooses to kill someone, should we let her do that, too? The question comes down to this: should we protect people from their own ignorance/stupidity/innocence or not?

(Reply to this)

HanShotFirst writes:
on Jan 21 2007 01:16 PM

In reply to this comment (#853518)
[b]America's Dangerous trun to the right[/b]
Sure, I have not seen Dakota's movie, but it sounds exactly like the work Jodi Foster was doing at that age in Taxi Driver and Pretty Baby. It might be controversial, but it is not child porn. Furthermore, I find it a cross between laughable and disgusting that Catholic church would be up in arms over this. What exactly is their issue? Are they upset because it wasn't a young boy being raped, as God intended?

(Reply to this)

aknddon3 writes:
on Jan 21 2007 01:51 PM

You have to love the ignorance of the nerds in this forum, if it was Bill Clinton then they would be praising him for trying to protect little kids, but because it is a catholic, these intolerant bigots shoot their retarded mouths off, get the democrats dick out of your mouth and grow up.

(Reply to this)

grapeantler writes:
on Jan 21 2007 02:48 PM

In reply to this comment (#853538)
I will not listen to anyone who is telling people to grow up when they say phrases like "dick in your mouth"

you sound like a 13 year old yourself.

(Reply to this)