Kathlyn Hotynski

Let me start by saying that if Dakota Fanning wasn’t shrieking at the top of her lungs in “War of the Worlds,” I would’ve enjoyed the movie much more than I did. I’m also not taking into account the Tom Cruise factor, but that’s getting a little too off the topic at hand.

Now, it seems as if the 12-year-old Fanning is on the receiving end of screams after her most recent movie was shown at the Sundance Film Festival in Utah.

In “Hounddog,” Fanning plays an Elvis Presley-obsessed girl in the 1960s South, growing up in a dysfunctional family, which in itself doesn’t sound very out of the ordinary. But the controversy lies within a minute-long scene in which Fanning is raped by the family’s milk boy.

According to an article in the Houston Chronicle, the leaders of the Christian Film and Television Commission and the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, Ted Baehr and Bill Donahue, have expressed outrage at the apparent display of “exploitation” and “child-pornography” in the film. Donahue also called for a federal investigation into whether anti-pornography laws were broken in the process of filming.

In contrast, Fanning has been adamantly defending her work and the overall message of the movie, which is not centered around the rape scene. Likewise, director Deborah Kampmeier said rape is a muted issue in society today and praised Fanning for tackling the challenging role. Even the governor of Utah, a state not known for liberal stances on social issues, saw nothing wrong with the controversial scene in “Hounddog.” That should be enough to convince people of the right to artistic free expression, provided no one is hurt in the process.

With the way these critics are talking, you would think Fanning was actually raped in the process of filming and the movie itself centers around the topic in a pornographic fashion. However, these claims aren’t even in the same ballpark as the truth. The scene is only 45 seconds in length and shows no more than a shot of Fanning’s hand, face and the sound of her yelling “stop!” in that time frame. The lighting is also very dark and shadowy throughout the event.

Clearly, there is a little bit of embellishment going on with these criticisms. Fanning wasn’t brainwashed and she was not abused whatsoever. Kampmeier, Fanning and Fanning’s parents spent months discussing the role and making sure she was ready to take on such a challenging portrayal that could re-define her career as an actress. That doesn’t sound like the kind of exploitation Donahue was up in arms about.

So why are people so afraid to see scenes of rape in movies?

Rape is a tragic and sensitive subject. It occurs every six minutes in the United States and is an issue that needs increased awareness in all of our lives. It is not something that should be censored on superficial grounds. I guarantee that if the child actress in question was less famous, the objections wouldn’t be nearly as strong.

If these acts are shown in a tasteful manner that contributes to the development of a storyline or overall lesson in the film or show, then there should be no cause for censorship. Rape victims identify and sympathize with scenes like the one in “Hounddog” or any Lifetime movie, and in turn that creates a better-educated public on the issue.

These outcries against the artistic expression of controversial topics that include rape, incest and homosexuality are unjustified and only hinder the development of society.

Most movies are meant to teach the audience something about hardships, injustices and triumph over adversity, and people like Donahue and Baehr have completely missed the boat on something that tragically affects many women and families every day.

If these activists spent half as much time working to prevent real-life rape and abuse as they do trying to censor fictional events in movies, I have no doubt the world would be changed for the better.

McCormick is a sophomore print journalism major and editorial editor of The Spectator.