Like Funky_F, I too was lulled into complacency which made the rape scene all the more shocking and powerful. This was largely achieved by what many people are referring to the “slow” pace of the movie. The rape scene itself was brief, moving, and as tasteful as any depiction of such a heinous act can be. The unhurried tempo of the film also serves to impress upon the audience that

The instances of near nudity were incorporated for two main reasons. The first of these being that it was largely indicative of children’s behavior during the time period. My grandparents grew up in the poor rural of South Carolina during the 1930’s and 40’s and agree that this was the norm for 9 year olds during the humid summer seasons of this era. Kampmeier’s other reason for “peppering the film with scenes of [Fanning]in her underwear” was to demonstrate Lewellen’s innocence by highlighting the fact that she is utterly unaware of her body in a sensual nature. Though she is privy to some of the sexuality between her father and Ellen (really, how could you not remember Ellen’s name when the main character is named for the combination of this woman who turns out to be her aunt and the father’s names?), she perceives herself in the naivety of childhood and therefore thinks nothing of swimming in her undergarments with her friend or singing in front of the young man delivering milk while lying in her bed.

The opening scene demonstrates the basic curiosity of children about their differences which does not at all indicate the beginning of puberty. Remember, while Dakota Fanning may have been 12 when the movie was shot, she played a 9 year old which would have made it highly unlikely that Lewellen was beginning to experience the mental and physical changes brought on by the movement into adolescence. This curiosity and consciousness of the basic biological differences between boys and girls does not indicate the sexual awareness and intent needed for a person to act “seductively”. The fact that the milkman saw himself as being seduced, shown by his request for Lewellen to “Do the one you did that mornin’,” serves to point out the warped and sick of his mind in that he found it possible to a 9 year old as a temptress.

My biggest grievance lies in the almost cliché role of “mystic black man” taken on by the character Charles. I agree that at times he seemed “too wise” and theatrical which was at odds with the gritty reality most of the other characters were portrayed in.

All around I thought this was a very good movie that sought to bring awareness to child abuse while also providing a sense of hope through Lewellen’s triumph over the seemingly overwhelming circumstances of her young life. Those who herald this movie as an example of child actors being exploited should first, actually watch the movie, second, examine the delicate way the questionable scene was handled, and lastly, perhaps seek to help those truly exploited, the victims of abuse that are found in the heart of the Hounddog’s message.

Yeah… whatever, dude. Maybe instead I’m a guy with a daughter.

Vic

@ Vic: “…but I don’t think showing a 12 year old girl acting seductively and peppering the film with scenes of her in her underwear was the way to go about it…”
Man, if you even noticed her underwear beside her acting, and found it “peppering” at that, I think you might fall into the following category:

“Those creepy guys who ogle kids underwear ads in the JC Penny catalog….”

$20 bucks says you’re not a parent.

Vic

Vic

Again not commenting on the movie because I havent seen it, but will rent it when it comes to DVD if ever. My commenting is based off of comments here and other places that have tried to scrutinize this flick.

Vic