North Carolina: Home of Trashy Rape Scenes and Trashier Republicans?

View
links

Submitted by Oliver Queen on Sat, 01/27/2007 - 2:26pm.

Hounddog is not a good movie, in spite of it's beautiful North Carolina backdrop (it was filmed in New Hanover and Brunswick Counties). No studio at the Sundance film festival wanted to buy it. Walkouts were common during screenings in Park City, Utah. It's been recieving bad reviews. Most of the dislike for this movie is focused on a non-nude scene in which 12-year-old Dakota Fanning plays a nine-year-old character who is raped.

This film certainly has questionable merit. But according to prosecutors, it didn't break the law, and it's simply a bad film, not an exploitation flick. I'm no fan of Dakota Fanning's work, but I don't think I agree with the latest conservative crusade to review scrips for studios that want tax incentives to film in North Carolina.

the leader of the state Senate Republicans says he wants the government to review scripts before cameras start rolling in North Carolina.

That system, said state Sen. Phil Berger, R-Rockingham, would apply only to films seeking the state's lucrative filmmaker incentive, which refunds as much as 15 percent of what productions spend in North Carolina from the state treasury.

"Why should North Carolina taxpayers pay for something they find objectionable?" said Berger, who is having proposed legislation drafted.

State Senator Julia Boseman, as always, is on the ball:

"There's no bill yet to take a look at," she said. "But I am always willing to consider reasonable ways to improve the program."

She did say she thought looking at scripts before shooting starts might be meaningless because a script could be changed during production.

So, is the Republican leader of the North Carolina Senate promoting censorship? Or are our tax dollars being wasted? Your thoughts?

Oliver Queen's blog
Login or register to post comments

I'm actually surprised more Republicans aren't up in arms about

Submitted by Oliver Queen on Sat, 01/27/2007 - 2:41pm.

this "sin-ema."

hmm

Submitted by Blue South on Sat, 01/27/2007 - 3:29pm.

"Why should North Carolina taxpayers pay for something they find objectionable?" said Berger, who is having proposed legislation drafted.

There are lots of things in this state I find objectionable that I dont mind taxes paying for. This isnt an "art" issue. This is just censorship of a growing industry that has expressed a willingness to spend a lot of money in our state.

Draft Brad Miller -- NC Sen ActBlue :::Petition

I don't wanna wait ... for Berger's term to be over

Submitted by Oliver Queen on Sat, 01/27/2007 - 3:40pm.

Imagine if they had censored Dawson's Creek.

Can Someone Explain

Submitted by Unique on Sat, 01/27/2007 - 4:30pm.

...how 'tax incentives' require me as a taxpayer to fund anything?

Maybe I'm not doing the math right but to me, tax incentives means money that the receiver of the incentive doesn't pay - not money that I, as a tax payer, am donating for them to do this.

Fuzzy math, anyone?

it depends on how you count

Submitted by Blue South on Sat, 01/27/2007 - 4:32pm.

if they would move there anyway then tax incentives are lost revenue for the government.
if they wouldnt move then the tax incentives are just things they wouldnt be paying, but ultimately the government gets more.

Draft Brad Miller -- NC Sen ActBlue :::Petition

2x0=0

Submitted by Unique on Sat, 01/27/2007 - 4:39pm.

Then I, as a tax payer,am not paying for anything then, am I?

Do movie companies actually move here? Or do they come and then go? I suspect it's the latter.

in the case of film industry

Submitted by Blue South on Sat, 01/27/2007 - 4:49pm.

The math the state chooses between is 0-0=0 or 5-1=4

In other industries its not always so clear cut.

Draft Brad Miller -- NC Sen ActBlue :::Petition

Is that like -

Submitted by Unique on Sat, 01/27/2007 - 5:27pm.

- the restauranteur who buys his steaks for $5 and sells them for 20$ so that way he always makes 3%? :p

So, let me get this

Submitted by DrFrankLives on Sun, 01/28/2007 - 1:24am.

So, let me get this straight. To Berger and the nutjobs, a rape of a twelve-year old girl "appeals to their prurient interest"?

How sick.

"85% of Republicans are Democrats who don't know what's going on." -Robert Kennedy, Jr.

Selective outrage

Submitted by working for change on Sun, 01/28/2007 - 5:59pm.

There's a movie called Bastard out of Carolina that plays on the Lifetime network all the time. (I know, "all the time" isn't a very scientific measure...but I swear everytime I scroll through the on-screen tv guide that movie is playing!)

I'm not what you would call a regular viewer of the Lifetime network, but I have seen this movie. Released sometime in the mid to late 90's, it's about a pre-adolescent girl growing up with an abusive stepfather who eventually rapes her. It contains a fairly graphic rape scene considering the age of the character and that it is played on basic cable.

In all this "outrage" over Hounddog, I've not heard one critic mention Bastard Out of Carolina or the Lifetime network. Is it just me...or does this stink of selective outrage?

Larry Kissell is MY Congressman