Passion of the Christ - Violence in Movies

[jmh382]

I wrote an article that you can find here about the Catholic League’s response to the new Dakota Fanning movie, Hounddog. I feel that the graphic nature of that movie is no more offensive to some people than the scenes of violence in The Passion of the Christ. I’m wondering what people here think about this. Is it hypocritical to support the violence that was evident in The Passion and then condemn other movies with graphic images?

 

[estesbob]

I wrote an article that you can find here about the Catholic League’s response to the new Dakota Fanning movie, Hounddog. I feel that the graphic nature of that movie is no more offensive to some people than the scenes of violence in The Passion of the Christ. I’m wondering what people here think about this. Is it hypocritical to support the violence that was evident in The Passion and then condemn other movies with graphic images?

The problem with Houndog is having a child dress in underwear and act out a rape scene with an adult is child abuse. Try doing the same scene at home with your video camera, post it on the net and see how long it takes for the police to show up. Fortunately the movie was so terrible no one picked it up. I dont have a problem with violecne in movies so ill leave ti to someone else to adress that,

 

[bones_IV]

I wrote an article that you can find here about the Catholic League’s response to the new Dakota Fanning movie, Hounddog. I feel that the graphic nature of that movie is no more offensive to some people than the scenes of violence in The Passion of the Christ. I’m wondering what people here think about this. Is it hypocritical to support the violence that was evident in The Passion and then condemn other movies with graphic images?

Anyone who thinks that supporting the The Passion but yet going against the Hounddog is hypocritical are either short on brains or they’re schizophrenic.

 

[jmh382]

If it is child abuse, then I agree that the filmmakers should be prosecuted.

I really don’t think that is the case though - if simulated child sex scenes are abuse, then why isn’t the simulated physical abuse of a child (which has been done in countless movies) also child abuse? I’ve seen lots of kids in movies in their underwear, I don’t think that really cuts it as far as criminal charges are concerned.

 

[jmh382]

Anyone who thinks that supporting the The Passion but yet going against the Hounddog is hypocritical are either short on brains or they’re schizophrenic.

Thanks - that was insightful.

My point is really that you can’t invoke freedom of expression and/or First Amendment Rights in one situation and then turn around and attack someone who is trying to do the same. I’m not supporting simulated child sex nor condemning The Passion. I’m saying that freedom of speech is important and not something to take for granted, which I think the Catholic League is doing in this instance.

 

[yugnok]

To be quite honest, I don’t know your intentions in posting that article here. Judging from the tone of the article, I suspect you aren’t looking for honest opinions but are simply trying to bait the people of these forums, but I’ll bite. Also I think it will probably be moved to a different section as it’s not really Catholic News but would be, I think, more appropriate in another place (no biggie).

Right away, I didn’t like the disrespectful, sarcastic tone you use. I can handle some sarcasm, but this just seems a little malicious. You begin by mocking the purpose of the Catholic League as if anti-Catholicism in this country was something insignificant or even non-existent. You express shock that such an organization even existed or that such a thing would even be necessary.

You write:

According to the League itself, prejudice against the Catholic Church was the deepest bias in the history of the American people [cough…slavery…cough]. But wait - it gets better. How many of you out there knew not only that “Catholic baiting is the anti-Semitism of the liberals”, but also that “Catholic bashing has become a staple of American society?” And here I thought it was baseball and hotdogs.

One can debate whether the above quotes are true to their full extent or they are an exaggeration. They were quotes from different University professors, not the words of the Catholic League, (you should have noted this in your article) which the League cited to make their point about the severity and extent of anti-Catholicism in American culture. So do you think there is such a thing as anti-Catholicism in this country and secondly do you think it’s important? If not then, I must ask are anti-Semitism and anti-Islamism serious problems? I believe the Catholic League does a good job of calling out people and organizations when they engage in bigotry or use double standards regarding Catholicism and other religious organizations. This happens more often than you may think. A lot of people in the media would be fired or disavowed if they said the same vile things about Jews or Muslims that they say about Catholics. If you are a Catholic, you are especially aware of it when your most sacred beliefs are mocked or you are labeled and marginalized by certain personalities in our culture, and you are well aware of the double standard that exists regarding the tolerance of different forms of bigotry.

As a side note, I wouldn’t describe slavery as a “bias” in the same sense that the various forms of bigotry are called biases. We are talking about ideologies when we speak of bias. Racism would be more on the mark; you could use that as an example of something that might be more embedded in our society. But, anti-Catholicism, as any objective historian would tell you, has very strong and very old roots in American culture.

Regarding the Dakota Fanning movie, Hounddog, I don’t think you article is fair to Mr. Donahue’s position. In fact, I believe you misrepresent it, by taking pieces of his comments out of context and putting words in his mouth. To be honest, I don’t know why you chose to pick on him.

For example you write:

As Mr. Donahue explained, in virtually every media outlet that would hear him, it is the Catholic League’s position that Hounddog is illegal child porn that must be stopped. While it is obvious to all involved that young Dakota was not actually subjected to rape (in the end, it is just acting), the suggestion of such a rape on the big screen seems to be where Mr. Donahue’s contentions lie. It is the “promoting of simulated child rape movies,” that Mr. Donahue wants to discourage, and he seems to be pulling out all the stops to do so.

Donahue does not assert emphatically that it is in fact child porn; he says it may be. That is why he asks for the investigation based on the descriptions of what occurs in the movie, e.g. a very sexualized pre-teen dancing around in her underwear and eventually involved in a violent rape scene. He states in the same article that you link, “It is unclear whether federal child pornography statutes have been broken in the course of filming this movie.” He seems to think it probably is child porn based on descriptions, but he is simply asking for an investigation by the government institutions that are responsible for such things.

Also, you seem to imply that it’s unimportant to Mr. Donahue whether or not Fanning was actually raped. No one thinks she was. Aside from the debate as to whether this movie is child pornography, I think that to every person who cares about children, all simulated child porn is a problem. Donahue is not trying to change any laws or usurp the 1st amendment. He is asking for an investigation as to whether a crime has been committed according to the laws that are in place regulating child pornography.

See part two.

 

[yugnok]

PART TWO

Later you write:

As Mr. Donahue alludes, the problem with simulated child rape is not necessarily that the child actors in the film are harmed, but that watching the film might incite horrific behaviors in those who lean toward pedophilia.

Where does he allude to this? He never gives his reasoning as to why he thinks simulated child porn is wrong. If he did give an argument as to why simulated child porn is wrong, that might be his argument. He has not yet accused this film (at least in none of the articles that I saw) of being such; only raised the possibility based on word of mouth. But, I don’t see anything wrong with such an argument against simulated child porn, if that is in fact the argument Donahue would use. That is why it would be illegal isn’t it? A pedophile fantasizes about things before acting on them. Simulated child porn feeds disordered and destructive desires that could end up harming children. As you said in your article, no one wants their neighbor watching simulated child porn.

Regarding the Passion of the Christ, I think your analysis again misrepresents Donahue’s position on the film.

You write:

Apparently, for Mr. Donahue and the League, the proof is in the proverbial pudding. Why should we be concerned about the promotion of anti-semitic movies if watching these movies doesn’t actually cause any violence?

First of all, you are operating on the assumption that the Passion of the Christ, is in fact anti-Semitic which you describe as having “had not so subtle hints of anti-semitism.” (I think maybe you should back that statement up.) But, Donahue doesn’t believe it is anti-Semitic. If he had thought that the Passion was anti-Semitic, he would have been the first to condemn it. His point was that a movie about the death of Jesus, that is not anti-Semitic, would not cause Christians in the 21st century to all of the sudden start attacking Jews (nor would they leave the theater with bolstered prejudices). He never says it’s ok to show anti-Semitic movies because no one will act violently. I don’t know how you can read that into his words.

As far as free speech goes, I think he would say that people have a right to make any anti-whatever movie, but decent people, companies, theaters, etc., have a responsibility not to support such garbage.

In your final paragraph you sarcastically write:

Suffice it to say that the Catholic church has had its share of problems with issues involving children, pedophiles, and the lethal combination of the two. That the civil rights super group associated with the church would choose kiddie porn as a call to arms to clean up the film industry is a stranger truth than fiction could ever wrought.

The president of the Catholic league has repeatedly applauded the media for bringing much of the matters of child abuse by clergy to light. However, he has also pointed out that there is often times a double standard that tends to single out the Catholic Church—as if the abuse of minors only happens among Catholic clergy (when was the last time you heard about the abuse of a minor by a protestant minister. They do exist.). He has a point. Why is one institution’s dirty laundry displayed while it is ignored within other institutions? For example, the abuse of minors and egregious cover-ups have occurred in our school systems. These are scandals just as vast and evil as what occurred in the Church. We don’t hear to much about that in the media do we? I guess teacher sex scandals aren’t as juicy as scandals with priests, unless of course the teacher is a beautiful woman, which is the only time we hear about teacher abuse in the media. Donahue’s position it is a great thing to hold the Church accountable when it comes to the abuse of children, but this also needs to occur with every institution.

Aside from the fact that you misrepresent the Catholic League’s position on the film and Donahue’s reasons for defending the Passion and aside from the question as to whether Hounddog is child porn, is any member of a Catholic organization ever again permitted to speak about any matter of justice regarding the abuse of children? Or are they all forever to be labeled as “abusers of children” who have no credibility? I think the word for that kind of blanket labeling is called bigotry.

 

[jmh382]

Thanks.

First off, I’m not sure I can respond to everything included in both of your posts, because I think they are actually longer than my original article. Nonetheless, I appreciate your thoughtful responses and I am glad you had this opportunity to attack me and call me a bigot. Sorry - there I am with the sarcasm again - I’ll try to be mindful.

I brought this particular post to the attention of this forum because I was looking for some honest/thought provoking answers to a question that generally puzzles me. It was a question that burned in my mind when I first viewed the movie and it is a question I still have today. Why was it ok for The Passion to be so incredibly violent when violence in video games, music, and television is attacked so readily and frequently by groups such as the Catholic League? The violence in The Passion (which I personally considered to be very graphic violence) is no more offensive to some than the sexually suggestive scenes in Hounddog are to others. Aren’t there impressionable young minds out there that could see The Passion too? Or perhaps persons with a hatred of Jews who could use the content of the movie to be moved to violence? [not unlike the child pervs seeing Hounddog]

I realize that Mr. Donahue is attacking the movie under the guise of enforcing child rape laws, but are you honestly going to tell me that doing so is his end goal? If so, then why isn’t he also doing interviews about and calling for investigations of the protestant or public school molestations that you mentioned? What exactly does the enforcement of child sex crime laws have to do with the civil rights of Catholics? Are Catholic civil rights really threatened by this movie? Shouldn’t Donahue at least see the movie before he decides that there should be a criminal investigation?

I’ll stop because I’d like to hear what others have to say.

As for your “they do it too” defense of molestation, is that really how you want Catholics to be viewed? If so, I don’t think I have a response.

 

[otto_otter]

Donohue is a hypocrite. He actually admitted on CNN if it hadn’t been Dakota, but some unknown 12 year-old actress who had portrayed a rape victim in Hounddog, he wouldn’t have bothered protesting the movie. The guy is only interested in exploiting Dakota’s success and popularity in order to push his twisted agenda. Using Dakota’s name gets his face on Hannity & Colmes and Wolf Blitzer.

Someone really needs to ask the guy why he’s so afraid of the subject of rape being discussed.

 

[Della]

Donohue is a hypocrite. He actually admitted on CNN if it hadn’t been Dakota, but some unknown 12 year-old actress who had portrayed a rape victim in Hounddog, he wouldn’t have bothered protesting the movie. The guy is only interested in exploiting Dakota’s success and popularity in order to push his twisted agenda. Using Dakota’s name gets his face on Hannity & Colmes and Wolf Blitzer.

Someone really needs to ask the guy why he’s so afraid of the subject of rape being discussed.

You might want to ask youself why Mr. Donohue said what he did for other reasons than you want to believe. Might it have been because he surmised that the producers of the film used a known child actor for the very purpose of eliciting free publicity for the film? If they had used an unknown it certainly wouldn’t be getting the buzz it is. Maybe it’s the film’s producers’ motives you should be examining more closely.

As to violence in movies, I cannot speak for the Church but as a practicing Catholic and a writer I can tell you I am not afraid of portraying evil in my stories as long as they are relevant to it. Violence for its own sake, be it physical, psychological, sexual, etc. isn’t good in any medium. It’s exploitation. And that is where I draw the line.

 

[yugnok]

“Why was it ok for The Passion to be so incredibly violent when violence in video games, music, and television is attacked so readily and frequently by groups such as the Catholic League?”

I haven’t seen the League attack any other movies for graphic or realistic violence, as such, as long as it is purposeful and isn’t simply glorifying it. The violence in the Passion showed violence as a horrifying thing. For example, the Catholic League would not condemn the violence in such movies as Saving Private Ryan or Schindler’s List, etc. I don’t think the Passion was any less violent than those two movies. They might condemn violence in the myriad of action movies that present violence as a virtue or violent video games such as Grand Theft Auto. There is a big difference.

Now, as far as Hounddog goes. I can’t speak to whether it is pornography or not. Haven’t seen it. When I heard about that I was more concerned about Dakota Fanning. I don’t know that its healthy for a child actress to be dealing with such grave topics such as rape, no matter how mature she seems for her age. We all know how child actors can turn out screwed up. If the movie itself is pornography, I doubt it. Could it have violated laws? Possibly. That is for the government to determine. Certainly, it is understandable how hearing about a movie that has a sexualized child dancing around in her underwear, and a rape scene, would raise some red flags with some people.

I think Donahue’s goal in bringing up Hounddog is to hold the media to the same standard that they hold the Church. At least thats what I see in his words. Was the medias fascination with the priest abuse scandal (front cover news for who knows how long) because they are trying to protect children or did they have an axe to grind? Was their campaign against the Passion because they were against movie violence? Highly doubtful. And, yes, Donahue does ask the media to be just as outraged about child abuse in all institutions.

Can you agree that simulated child porn should be illegal? How about childhood nudity (or dancing in her underwear) in movies? Where do you draw the line. I don’t know that a child of 12 should be able to legally consent to such things. There are regulations in place for a reason.

One could turn your question around and ask why do movie reviewers in Hollywood and the media only care about movie violence when Mel Gibson makes a movie–well at least a Christian Mel Gibson. No one cared about the violence in Braveheart when it wasn’t widely known that he was a Christian. They gave him an academy award for it. How many other academy awards were given for very violent movies? When he made the Passion, even before a script was available; it was roundly condemned. I liked one quote by Donahue when he said that the only thing that seems capable of offending Hollywood’s sensibilities is when you make a movie about the death of Christ.

I thought your question was phrased much better (fairly) and respectfully in your response, until I read your last comment:

“As for your “they do it too” defense of molestation, is that really how you want Catholics to be viewed? If so, I don’t think I have a response.”

I don’t know how in the world you can read that into my response.

Did I ever say or imply “They do it too. So its ok”? Did I even say anything remotely similar to that? Did I say anything that would minimize the culpability of abusers? If I did, point it out for me. I only said that the media does not hold all instituions to the same standard. So are you going to say that the media should only bring up abuse of minors when it is present in the Catholic Church or do other institutions get a pass?

With that kind of malicious reading into my words you just strengthened my suspicion that you are here just to get a rise out people. I don’t think I’ll be responding anymore. As they say, “Don’t feed the trolls.”

 

[otto_otter]

You might want to ask youself why Mr. Donohue said what he did for other reasons than you want to believe. Might it have been because he surmised that the producers of the film used a known child actor for the very purpose of eliciting free publicity for the film? If they had used an unknown it certainly wouldn’t be getting the buzz it is. Maybe it’s the film’s producers’ motives you should be examining more closely.

As to violence in movies, I cannot speak for the Church but as a practicing Catholic and a writer I can tell you I am not afraid of portraying evil in my stories as long as they are relevant to it. Violence for its own sake, be it physical, psychological, sexual, etc. isn’t good in any medium. It’s exploitation. And that is where I draw the line.

And what other reasons might those be? The man himself said that if it hadn’t been Dakota in the movie, he would not be protesting it. This has nothing to do with Donohue wanting to protect Dakota, a successful actress who normally pulls down $3 million per film (she did Hounddog for scale, which should tell you how much she wanted to do the movie). An actress who has a team of lawyers at her disposal. An actress with so much influence in the business that Steven Spielberg had to direct War of the Worlds around Dakota’s schedule in order to have her in his movie.

Dakota does not need Donohue’s protection, and frankly it’s laughable to think that she, her agent, her parents, her attorneys, or any number of powerful figures she personally knows and works with in the business would for even one moment consider placing Dakota in a questionable situation that would lead to some type of sexual abuse or child pornography. Unsupported claims have been made about this movie, and in each and every case no evidence was found that anything illegal or improper had occurred.

Yet Donohue and others of his ilk still protest the movie sight unseen. Why? Because it gives them publicity. If Donohue wanted to actually help, he would be trying to protect all those unknown actresses who don’t have the type of support system Dakota enjoys, rather than getting his name into the headlines.

As for your statement: “Violence for its own sake, be it physical, psychological, sexual, etc. isn’t good in any medium. It’s exploitation. And that is where I draw the line.” If this is aimed at Hounddog, it’s simply not true. Dakota’s character is not raped simply for the sake of her character being raped. It’s part of the storyline, and creates a drastic change in her character. Also, the rape scene is not graphic, nor is it ever actually shown onscreen. But it is an important part of the story, and to simply call Hounddog exploitation because a rape occurs would be to condemn any movie featuring a rape victim.

“Might it have been because he surmised that the producers of the film used a known child actor for the very purpose of eliciting free publicity for the film? If they had used an unknown it certainly wouldn’t be getting the buzz it is. Maybe it’s the film’s producers’ motives you should be examining more closely.”

Strawman argument. Popular actors are highly sought after for any movie. And all of Hounddog’s “buzz” has been courtesy of Donohue & co. If they had chosen to ignore the movie, the “buzz” would have been pretty much nonexistent.

 

[historybrat]

Let me start off by saying I have not even seen a clip of Houndog and plan on never seeing the movie, everything I know about it comes for the news. I have see Passion of the Christ and have a tendency to fast forward through most violent scenes. I like movies and tend to watch a wide variety of them. While I cannot speak for ever Catholic, or even those in your article here is my personal opinion.

I think as a society we have become immune to a lot of the violence around us. We see it everywhere, including movies, that it does not strike us the way it use to. For me, I am sick and tired of the gratutious (sp?) violence in films. If the violence is necessary to the story, in order to fully explore and develop it than I can deal with it. I am specifically thinking of Saving Private Ryan and Passion of the Christ. In order to understand D-Day and WWII you have to show the violence that was going in. Fundamentally we must understand how Christ suffered to understand the full impact of his gift. It may not be easy to see, but it wasn’t also just there to entertain. So much of the violence today is simply there to entertain and to pull in a young male audience. Many people including the Catholic League have denounced plenty of films and video games that have violence for the sake of violence.

Sex is a whole different and separate matter than violence. As saturated as our culture is with sex we still have problems seeing children sexualized,to depict any sexual acts with a child is basically asking for attention. Sex is never essential to fully develop a story. Its there to get your attention, to help you escape, to turn you on, its not there as an essential part of a story unless its pornography. I absolutely cannot stand when directors feel the need to throw in a sex scene to keep us interested. To depict a child in a sexual manner, then depict that child’s rape is definitely not needed. Its there to shock the audience. The story could have been told without it. And the story could have been told very well without it, it degrades the story/film by adding it in there.

So I guess to summarize, for me violence can ocassionally help develop and fully explain the story being told. We don’t need violence in ever film, and it is definitely being over done, but it is sometimes needed. Sex is just there to get attention; it is not need and overally hurts the story. To add a child into that, seems to be to cater to the absolute lowest, morally-challenged people. For me that’s plain disgusting and we should be setting our standards for society much higher than are when we are entertained by watching a a 12 year old dance sexually in her underwear and then a simulated rape scene with the child.

historybrat

 

[estesbob]

Donohue is a hypocrite. He actually admitted on CNN if it hadn’t been Dakota, but some unknown 12 year-old actress who had portrayed a rape victim in Hounddog, he wouldn’t have bothered protesting the movie. The guy is only interested in exploiting Dakota’s success and popularity in order to push his twisted agenda. Using Dakota’s name gets his face on Hannity & Colmes and Wolf Blitzer.

Someone really needs to ask the guy why he’s so afraid of the subject of rape being discussed.

The idea that opposing a graphic rape scene involving a 12 year old actress somehow means one is uncomfortable discussing rape is specious. As I said before if one taped that scene privaltely and put it on the internet they would be arrested for child abuse and child pornorrgraphy. It is evident that you dislike Mr Donohue but your dislike has unfortunately led you to support filth, child pornography and child abuse.

 

[otto_otter]

The idea that opposing a graphic rape scene involving a 12 year old actress somehow means one is uncomfortable discussing rape is specious. As I said before if one taped that scene privaltely and put it on the internet they would be arrested for child abuse and child pornorrgraphy. It is evident that you dislike Mr Donohue but your dislike has unfortunately led you to support filth, child pornography and child abuse.

If you try doing some actual research instead of simply repeating lies that you’ve read, you’ll see that you’re 100% wrong.

No graphic rape scene exists in Hounddog. The rape is not even depicted onscreen, and is only implied through editing. Dakota filmed her parts of the scene alone. At no time was she in physical contact with another actor. At no time is the audience led to believe that she actually participated in any type of sexual conduct. All we see of Dakota is her face. This is not a graphic rape scene by any stretch of the imagination.

“As I said before if one taped that scene privaltely and put it on the internet they would be arrested for child abuse and child pornorrgraphy.”

Again, you are 100% incorrect. After receiving complaints, North Carolina state officials viewed an unedited version of Hounddog and found nothing illegal or improper had occurred. The Utah State Attorney viewed Hounddog at Sundance and found nothing wrong with the movie. No child abuse occurred on set, and the movie is not pornographic. To claim otherwise is to ignore the facts.

The truth is that some people simply aren’t comfortable with the subject of rape, but unfortunately it is a crime that claims victims much younger than Dakota’s character in Hounddog on a daily basis. Attempting to sweep it under the rug under the guise of “filth, child pornography and child abuse” is only hurting the victims and running away from the subject. Rape is a crime of violence, where the victim often remains silent out of shame. Attacking Dakota and her family simply because she chose to work on this movie (which incidentally involved taking a huge cut in pay and passing up on more lucrative and “safer” roles) is unwarranted and misguided. As often happens in real life, Dakota’s character keeps silent about the rape, which destroys her innocence forever.

Bad things happen in life. Deal with it.

 

[estesbob]

If you try doing some actual research instead of simply repeating lies that you’ve read, you’ll see that you’re 100% wrong.

No graphic rape scene exists in Hounddog. The rape is not even depicted onscreen, and is only implied through editing. Dakota filmed her parts of the scene alone. At no time was she in physical contact with another actor. At no time is the audience led to believe that she actually participated in any type of sexual conduct. All we see of Dakota is her face. This is not a graphic rape scene by any stretch of the imagination.

“As I said before if one taped that scene privaltely and put it on the internet they would be arrested for child abuse and child pornorrgraphy.”

Again, you are 100% incorrect. After receiving complaints, North Carolina state officials viewed an unedited version of Hounddog and found nothing illegal or improper had occurred. The Utah State Attorney viewed Hounddog at Sundance and found nothing wrong with the movie. No child abuse occurred on set, and the movie is not pornographic. To claim otherwise is to ignore the facts.

The truth is that some people simply aren’t comfortable with the subject of rape, but unfortunately it is a crime that claims victims much younger than Dakota’s character in Hounddog on a daily basis. Attempting to sweep it under the rug under the guise of “filth, child pornography and child abuse” is only hurting the victims and running away from the subject. Rape is a crime of violence, where the victim often remains silent out of shame. Attacking Dakota and her family simply because she chose to work on this movie (which incidentally involved taking a huge cut in pay and passing up on more lucrative and “safer” roles) is unwarranted and misguided. As often happens in real life, Dakota’s character keeps silent about the rape, which destroys her innocence forever.

Bad things happen in life. Deal with it.

Bad posts happen in life also., the above being a perfect example The scene that actually made it to the movie was greatly changed from the scene as orignally filmed. One need only read the descriptons of the scene given by Ms Fannings Mother and the director of the scene before all us narrow minded people started to protest. you really should do a little research on this issue.

I didn’t attack Dakota-just commented on her exploitationby her Mother and the Director who put their careers ahead of this childs well being. Dakota’s mother has been trumpeting what she decibed as a graphic rape scene as an Academy award caliber performance for months.

 

[BillP]

Anyone who thinks that supporting the The Passion but yet going against the Hounddog is hypocritical are either short on brains or they’re schizophrenic.

Wow! Three posts before someone without a cogent argument resorted to name calling!