Talk:Hounddog (film)

Working title

Shouldn't it be noted that Hounddog is just a working title, and that the producers may or may not be able to use it because they haven't gotten the rights to Elvis music and stuff? -Unknown. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.24.165.186 (talk) 28 December 2006

Elvis doesn't own the rights...it isn't his song nor did he write it!!!!! His is a cover!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.244.30.189 (talk) 30 December 2006

What the heck is this???

"Defenders of the production company were silent for two weeks when the controversy erupted, and now offer up this "cover up excuse," days later, as proof that they were, in fact, concerned about the propriety of wardrobe worn in this rape scene using the talents of a twelve year-old child. These same voices are silent about what Dakota was wearing when she filmed the mutual masturbation scene.

On January 18th, a film starring Dakota Fanning is set to debut at the Sundance Film Festival. "Hound Dog," filmed in North Carolina, is getting a lot of buzz because in this movie, 12 year-old Dakota Fanning acted out a rape scene, on camera, and in the script, was called upon to perform mutual masturbation with another actor, a scene which may or may not be in the final cut of the movie. Reports persist that the footage of the masturbation scene was conveniently destroyed. What we know for certain is that a professional movie crew was so outraged during filming of the rape scene that they walked off the set."

This was obviously written by someone with an agenda. The entire section should be removed and extensively re-written.

See "Rape scene controversy" below. --Uncle Ed 17:05, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Non-POV elements in article

The non-neutral, prosecutorial tone about the studio's motivations in the rumours section can and has been mistaken as Wikipedia's voice as opposed to that of external sources. This part of the article should be removed and links with accompanying non-judgmental text provided. 70.109.178.254 04:21, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Rumors Section

The whole entire rumors section either needs to be taken out or rewritten in an objective manner. The article reads like an attack.

I agree, and have marked the page as 'neutrality disputed' until this is re-written in a more objective manner. (Richardcarroll1981 09:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC))

I have made a small addition regarding the controversy. I hope it is objective. The first source I cite is not my favorite, but it at least is factual. The second has less info but is also apparantly on the other side of the issue. Jmcachran 17:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

As the entire Rumors section has apparently been taken out, the original reason for the NPOV tag is gone. Therefore, I'm removing the NPOV tag. If anyone wants to reinsert it because they think the article is still NPOV, be sure to give a currently applicable reason here on the talk page. Thanks. 62.245.80.251 12:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Rape scene controversy

The lady who wrote the rape scene (or had it written) insisted that rape is a "crucial, under-reported" "silenced" issue.

I meant the director, Deborah Kampmeier. --Uncle Ed 17:25, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Fox News reviewer Roger Friedman wrote, "There is no point that I can find to the child’s rape. Once it happens, it’s never discussed. The culprit is never accused or apprehended. The child never tells her story to anyone. There’s no great moment of revelation that could possibly help someone who’s watching the film. It’s simply there for shock value. The fact that Kampmeier and the producers have somehow conned rape-assistance groups into using the movie as a public-service announcement is bizarre to me." [1]

• The script requires the preteen actress to confront tougher challenges than Brooke Shields and Jodie Foster did when, at Fanning's age, they played child prostitutes. (NY Daily News)

• A editor who screened the film before Sundance said the rape scene, while disturbing, isn't graphic, with close-ups of Fanning's face, shoulder and part of a leg. [2]

Here are some quotes. I can't find the original lady's quote yet. --Uncle Ed 17:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

HAVE ANY OF YOU RETARDS ACTUALLY SEEN THE DAMN MOVIE? YOU SHOULD AT LEAST SEE IT BEFORE YOU JUDGE IT! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jordanphantom (talk • contribs) 17:12, 6 February 2007

Why does the word "appear" appear to appear three times in one sentence in the intro? "...Fanning to "appear" nude, to "appear" in nothing but underwear and to "appear" in what has been described as a rape scene. Could we clean this up and give it a better appearance? --71.243.18.146 23:23, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Removed the claim to complaints by "conservatives," as such claim is not supported by the article cited. The article only mentions religious complaints.98.223.223.248 (talk) 23:20, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Director quotes

• The director insists the rape scene in the film was very carefully choreographed and filmed, so that Fanning was never harmed psychologically.
• She explains, "Exactly how I was going to film the rape scene was articulated quite specifically in the script, and her mother, her agent, and her teacher/child welfare worker were all present for the scene, which was carried out exactly as we discussed it.
• "I had to hide the fact that this girl is not naked. I had to hide the fact that there is not a boy on top of this girl having sex... I shot her face. I didn't shoot flesh against flesh... because I wanted to capture a soul going through this experience, not a body." [3] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ed Poor (talk • contribs) 17:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC).

This is the quote I was referring to:

• Kampmeier said it took her a decade to get the film made, largely because of the rape scene, but cutting it was a compromise she was unwilling to make. “This issue is so silenced in our society. There are a lot of women who are alone with this story,” she said.

Compare this to the Fox reviewer's point above. --Uncle Ed 17:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Page move

Per Wikipedia naming conventions, the article is now Hounddog (2007 film). RadioKirk (u|t|c) 17:55, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I moved it back to Hounddog (film) because Wikipedia naming conventions states that pages should be disambiguated only when necessary. Since there isn't another movie called "Hounddog" with an article on Wikipedia there is no need to put the year in the title. Ospinad 18:28, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Wrong date

The article says that the movie premieers on August 17—then why hasn't it come out yet? I think the date needs to be changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.181.52.152 (talk) 14:05, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Hounddog poster.JPG

Image:Hounddog poster.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot 05:34, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Purged section

I've removed the "Elis-related anachronisms" section from the article:

Elvis-related Anachronisms

• The 45 rpm record that Lewellen's father gave her in the truck (supposedly by Elvis on RCA) is apparently a reissue of an original which did not exist at the time.
• Elvis Presley's appearance singing "Houndog" on the Milton Berle Show took place on June 5, 1956. Several of the vehicles used in the movie were newer than this. The pink Desoto (or Dodge) was probably a 1956, but it's not likely that a rural Alabama woman would be driving a new car. The tow truck used to tow the Desoto was a 1957 at the oldest, and it was quite beat up. The red Pontiac at the Elvis concert was a 1959.
• In the scene in which Dakota Fanning (Lewellen) is lying in the bed, the character played by Robin Wright Penn asks her to sing her an Elvis song. She sings part of "Can't Help Falling In Love" which was not recorded until 1961 for the movie "Blue Hawaii".
• The audio clip used for the concert scene sounds like something Elvis did in the 1970s or late-1960s.

It is rife with original research. We need reliable citations that explictly speak to these anachronisms for them to remain in the article. Until they are found, they can stay here in article discussion. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:06, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Wooden

One of the characters is credited and described as "Wooden's Boy", but what does that mean? Is Wooden a person that is never met? Or does it mean Wooden is an organization or something? It's very confusing, I haven't seen the movie so I'm wondering if someone might explain in the article what this means. Dictabeard (talk) 21:00, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Being that the film is set in a small rural southern community, when the boy's character is established, Fanning's character referrers to him simply as "wooden's boy" - the son of a Mr. Wooden, apparently a local with some degree of prominence or repute. Any implications as to his social position and other ties would have been drawn by the characters of the area who knew the family, but these aren't ever explained to the audience and so assumed irrelevant. It just happens to be the only way the character is ever addressed on screen (and i assume in the billing.) It is confusing to read...i'm not sure how to concisely convey this on the page to prevent confusion...perhaps "a local young man referred to only as 'wooden's boy....'" - leitmotif