Controversy is a very funny thing. In the independent film world, with its limited marketing budgets and sometimes complete ignorance from the mainstream press, controversy is often the thing that will bring you a significant audience. I will not be so cynical to believe that every single controversy about a film that hits before anyone has even seen the film is cooked up be savvy publicity and marketing people, but I will not be naive in thinking that PR people have nothing to do with the controversy stirring that goes on in the media - again often for months before anyone (critics included) have seen the film. What is interesting to me is that sometimes films with really controversial subject matter don't even get a whisper (especially if they are docs) and others with hardly any true controversial material are in the media and public eye all the time. A case in point was at this year's Sundance Film Festival where two films - HOUND DOG and ZOO - stood at these opposites sides of the spectrum.
HOUND DOG, a film by Deborah Kampmeier and starring Dakota Fanning as a precocious 12 year old living with her hard done by grandmother and abusive father. She is obsessed with Elvis Presley. It is a film that is the epitome of the southern Gothic tale of sorrow, regret and violence. But this is not the controversy. as you may have heard, the film contains a rape scene in which Dakota's CHARACTER (caps for emphasis) is violated by an older boy. There is much to be said about the film as a whole -though Dakota Fanning gives a very real and poignant performance, the film is not only flawed but racist- but what was blown up about in the press was this rape scene. The Catholic League were up in arms about the "irresponsibility" of the filmmakers in showing things of such a graphic nature on screen. This, by the way, having not actually seen the film but upon hearing about its content. major national publications such as The New York Times, The Los Angeles Times and Entertainment Weekly to name but a few, all covered the controversy. Was Dakota ruining her career? her image? What does the film say about the status and protection of children in America when a filmmaker is allowed to show something like this? Again, the film had not been seen by anyone. So afraid of the media backlash, Sundance scheduled, instead of the regular filmmaker Q&A, a panel with the filmmakers, Dakota and representatives from rape awareness groups. For all of you who are wondering, the rape scene lasts perhaps 30 seconds. You see a leg, an arm and Dakota's face. The scene is done with grace and professionalism given the context. Rape happens to everyone - men, women and sadly, children. There is nothing gratuitous about the scene and in my opinion was actually the most honest part of the film. Controversy sold out screenings and led to much buzz before and after. But was the controversy justified?
Another film at Sundance, that I expected to court much controversy and protest was ZOO. ZOO is a documentary by Robinson Devor about the people and events surrounding the "mysterious" death of a man in Washington state some years ago. What is controversial about the film is not that the man died, but how he died - he bled internally as a result of injuries sustained by sexual penetration by a horse. Yes, a horse. The man was part of a group of men who regularly had sexual relations with horses at a nearby farm. The group - zoophiles- had been around for a while and included members of the local community. The film is fascinating and beautifully shot but is at its core a film about bestiality - an act most people find abhorrent. Yet, barely a whisper of controversy.
Is it because one of these films is a narrative/fictional story starring one of America's darlings and the other is a true story about people no one knows or cares about? Has controversy become about status? Is it only controversial if we know (or think that we know) the people involved? Either way, one of these films people are still talking about but to date does not have a theatrical distributor (HOUND DOG) the other will be released by Think Film in the coming year.
Keeping it indie,
Julie
HOUND DOG, a film by Deborah Kampmeier and starring Dakota Fanning as a precocious 12 year old living with her hard done by grandmother and abusive father. She is obsessed with Elvis Presley. It is a film that is the epitome of the southern Gothic tale of sorrow, regret and violence. But this is not the controversy. as you may have heard, the film contains a rape scene in which Dakota's CHARACTER (caps for emphasis) is violated by an older boy. There is much to be said about the film as a whole -though Dakota Fanning gives a very real and poignant performance, the film is not only flawed but racist- but what was blown up about in the press was this rape scene. The Catholic League were up in arms about the "irresponsibility" of the filmmakers in showing things of such a graphic nature on screen. This, by the way, having not actually seen the film but upon hearing about its content. major national publications such as The New York Times, The Los Angeles Times and Entertainment Weekly to name but a few, all covered the controversy. Was Dakota ruining her career? her image? What does the film say about the status and protection of children in America when a filmmaker is allowed to show something like this? Again, the film had not been seen by anyone. So afraid of the media backlash, Sundance scheduled, instead of the regular filmmaker Q&A, a panel with the filmmakers, Dakota and representatives from rape awareness groups. For all of you who are wondering, the rape scene lasts perhaps 30 seconds. You see a leg, an arm and Dakota's face. The scene is done with grace and professionalism given the context. Rape happens to everyone - men, women and sadly, children. There is nothing gratuitous about the scene and in my opinion was actually the most honest part of the film. Controversy sold out screenings and led to much buzz before and after. But was the controversy justified?
Another film at Sundance, that I expected to court much controversy and protest was ZOO. ZOO is a documentary by Robinson Devor about the people and events surrounding the "mysterious" death of a man in Washington state some years ago. What is controversial about the film is not that the man died, but how he died - he bled internally as a result of injuries sustained by sexual penetration by a horse. Yes, a horse. The man was part of a group of men who regularly had sexual relations with horses at a nearby farm. The group - zoophiles- had been around for a while and included members of the local community. The film is fascinating and beautifully shot but is at its core a film about bestiality - an act most people find abhorrent. Yet, barely a whisper of controversy.
Is it because one of these films is a narrative/fictional story starring one of America's darlings and the other is a true story about people no one knows or cares about? Has controversy become about status? Is it only controversial if we know (or think that we know) the people involved? Either way, one of these films people are still talking about but to date does not have a theatrical distributor (HOUND DOG) the other will be released by Think Film in the coming year.
Keeping it indie,
Julie
posted by indieIN | 8:23 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home