Rape scene was unnecessary

The rape scene was used to hammer in the rightwing-feminist agenda that all men are evil, even when they are kids, thus Cody bringing Lewellen to the shed setting her up to get raped. The final edit deleted the part showing Cody, the 10 year old boyfriend, laughing as Lewellen was raped.

Apparently in the mind of the men hating writer/director a girl's innocent experimentation with wanting to see a boys penis, and dancing seductively, even at 9 years of age, brings about an evil animalistic demon in all males, fathers included.

Was the rape scene needed to show this? Dakota's mom thought so. Dakota's mom also thought it was good to show Lewellen (Dakota) hold the 10 year old Cody and the 8 year old Grasshopper at gun point and make them strip and fondle each other thus showing how Dakota reached for "power" in a "typical male" manner. Of course this entire scene was deleted prior to it's release for obvious reasons.


Leave the kids alone!

http://i31.tinypic.com/30u3jg5.jpg

While I was impressed with Dakota Fanning's acting, I found
the movie formulaic, dull and ostentatious.

And I agree with others...the rape scene was not needed..it felt contrived.

If you love Jesus Christ and are 100% proud of it copy this and make it your signature!

It takes something extreme to get a 12 year old white girl to sing the blues. She was a shimmer of light being engulfed by the darkness that surround her. Everyone turned on her, her father neglected her and then became mentally challenged, her grandmother gave her no room to be "her", the stranger lady lied and turn her back on her, her childhood friends that she confined in would turn against her and even her idol Elvis kept on riding by. The only person she could trust was Charles and he was a mentor that guided her to find peace and harmony within her spirit. All her Elvis mimics weren't her true self it was just a fantasy, an escape from her daily hardships. Charles could see her for what she really is, which was an amazing beautiful gift from god that was trapped in a world of darkness. That's why Charles says 24 minutes in the film "feeling the spirits in the dark, are you?" Charles identifies her life as that of a snake charmer or medicine man that handles the venom of the snake when the medicine man gets so much of the venom in their veins they either die or become immune to it. What more poison can a little girl have then to be raped? She was bite by the snake and the venom was killing her. Charles realized this and knew her spirit was buried and suffocating from the darkness that poison her body,mind and soul. He knew the only way to bring forth that spirit was for her to do which she loved most despite all the wrong she been dealt and that was to sing hounddog but not to imitate Elvis with the song but to sing it from her own perspective, with her heart and soul. Dakota plays it perfectly when she first is standing their singing I can almost see the darkness around her through her body language and speech but as she sings it's like a light emerging from underneath her and rising upward completely surrounding her that takes her away from that dark place. As horrible as it seems, something like what happen to her would make a little white girl sing the blues.

As for Dakota Fanning she absolutely blows my mind. I never seen a child on screen as talented as her. I just hope as she gets older that the life style that comes with being a famous actor doesn't eat her up. I personally have and will continue to enjoy seeing her grow up before my eyes on the wide screen as she continues to take on challenging roles such as Lewellen.

In my opinion Dakota is the next Hilary Swank but yet innovating enough to still be in her own league.

way to go kiddo!

I just watched the movie, and I have to say that the rape scene wasn't impressive at all. It certainly wasn't shocking.

Not graphic at all, not long enough, and the acting from Dakota wasn't that great. I don't see what everyone raises a fuss about.

If you think that having the kid just jilted by her "boyfriend" would have the same dramatic effect as the rape, you are obviously too freaked out by an imaginary rape to have a clear view of anything here.

It's a movie. The kid wasn't raped. By all accounts, the kid didn't even really understand what the final cut was supposed to represent.

Whether the scene was "necessary" depends on whether you really give a rat's a** about what the original author wrote, or intented. You can cut all sex and violence out of film -- if you're willing to let the end-product be puerile, boring crud.

Nobody forces you to watch.

Nope. No one agrees cause you're entirely off base. The rape scene was CRUCIAL because that's what stopped her from singing and dancing. Remember how in the movie it was dance and sing, dance and sing, dance and sing, rape, no more dancing and singing? She "lost her voice" because of the rape. That scene was pivotal to the rest of the film.

for shock value and controversy yes it's and indie film so i'm sure it was a marketing tactic .I feel anytime something extreme is shown in a film it's used as a marketing tool.Freud said it best we're driven by two things "Sex and ambition".I think in our society we lean more towards the sex end also i've seen the movie(rape scene included).To be perfectly honest it wasn't that bad ,it was done well not over done .Or not to graphic and it was quick i feel alot of movie sex and rape scenes should be done that way. Quick and to the point,so the audience doesn't lose sight of the real point of the story .

Also i wouldn't doubt it if the choice for dakota to do this movie had something to do with.Her being marketing as like a brooke shields type;going back to to what you said said about shock value .That's why they call it the film business ,at the end of the day it's about selling your product.

[deleted]