MovieChat Forums > Hounddog (2007) Discussion > No One Knocking This Film On Moral Groun...

No One Knocking This Film On Moral Grounds Has Actually Watched It

posted 14 years ago by photographer78
11 replies | jump to latest

Which is no surprise, considering they are almost all doing so because of their 'religion'. Religious groups down through the ages have picketed films they haven't watched and burned books they haven't read.

Which should also come as no surprise, considering religions are built on hypocricy and lies.

If you didnt like the film for artistic reasons, complain away. I thought it was a 6/10 myself. But to my religious chums, I say: 'Judge not, lest ye be judged yourselves'. I'm sorry if I've misquoted that, but since it was said by someone who never actually existed, I'm sure he wont mind.

---------------------
Nooooooooooo!- Darth Vader

[–] hppg 14 years ago

Ummm actually a lot of the people have criticising it have watched it and plenty are not religious. There are a lot of crazies on both sides, or were at the time, I remember the boards. There were a lot of rational people here who saw it at Sundance though and thought it was rubbish and gross (apparently that version was worse or maybe another version, I don't even remember any more this was years ago lol).

I thought it was pretty crap artistically too but I'm still against using young children in films in certain types of scenes because I don't think it's something they can fully consent to. Even if they understand it, and being mature they probably do, why would you want your child to have to act it out, empathise with somebody going through that, be forever known as doing it and have it appear on youtube, in screen captures etc? I find it hard to understand what would make a parent do that other than wanting their child to be in a film at all costs. There must be other reasons but I just don't get it. I also can understand more if it's a really good film raising awareness but this one was not. Also at 11 or 12 can a child really understand the ramifications of what they're doing? They probably don't know how paedophiles enjoy this and they will be remembered for it forever.

The other thing that bothered me was how many people rallied to the defence of this. Basically this: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0415856/board/flat/139222154
At the time of the controversy people became obsessive about defending their right to watch it and it just became incredibly weird, you started to wonder why on earth they were so passionate about needing to see the scene to enjoy the film. There are plenty of other censorship things to protest about or other child acting to admire, I think seeing the creepy defenders made a lot of people more worried than they would have been otherwise. Of course, the same applied to crazy attackers who were more worried about this than real child abuse but I didn't see as many of them or as crazy.

For what it's worth I'm an atheist too.

[–] photographer78 14 years ago

Good points; well made.

[as rare as platinum on this website :-)]
---------------------
Nooooooooooo!- Darth Vader

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] hppg 14 years ago

True, but I think they can all be differentiated. Medical treatment is generally essential. It's rare you'll have a child being given non-essential medical treatment (but it does happen, and I have to say I'm generally against that too, but it's a whole other issue). Sport is an interesting one, but I think it's generally explained to kids that there can be injury and/or death (at least, it was known when I did sport), and kids generally understand injury and/or death because they will have experienced it from a young age just falling about as they're running around, or seeing family members injuried/die, so they have at least some basis to understand it, rather than it being a more abstract mental concept to do with very adult things. I was under the impression contracts made with minors, even with parental consent, were generally voidable?

Parents do indeed have to make decisions for their child in areas the child doesn't understand, and I think that's exactly why they shouldn't be consenting for their child to simulate sex. I don't think any of your examples are quite like it in terms of what the minor's understand is and what the potential ramifications may be.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] cableaddict 14 years ago

I don't believe in any religion, and I enjoy all types of movies from Disney to Adult XXX.

However, this movie is child pornography, plain & simple. The entire thing was clearly conceived as a way to show a pre-pubescent girl in lewd situations.

To think otherwise or to defend it is absurd, and incredibly naive.

[–] cathy-creswell 8 years ago

No. Thats not the intent. The "sexual" behaviour is just imitating Elvis. I don't think the girl understood it as sexual. She was innocent.

The movies intent was to show how ignorance and neglect can ruin lives. The simple thinking of religioud folk in the movie contemn before empathy. They have no love.

The rape scene was not gratuitous. Manyyoung girls are lured, tricked and coerced into sex\rape. It speaks to a terrible reality.

Anyone getting perverse pleasure is a sicko with no heart.

[–] ork 13 years ago

I think that's exactly why they shouldn't be consenting for their child to simulate sex

All is good then, since no child is simulating sex in this movie. The only thing shown is facial expressions and hand movements. That's not simulated sex.

[–] hppg 13 years ago

Um yes it was. it was simulated sex shown with a close-up. she knew what she was doing.

[–] PimpSmackersGOM 13 years ago

Um yes it was. it was simulated sex shown with a close-up

You're confusing 'simulated' with 'implied'. There was no simulated sex shown in those closeups. The only thing that was shown were her hands and eyes.

A superhero never reveals their true identity