The Sundance Film Festival is known for its originality and unorthodox productions. However, instead of offering progressive, constructive and artistic works, this year Hollywood regressed terribly and presented infamy. The film Hounddog stole this winter’s show, not because it was a masterfully directed untapped marvel like last year’s Little Miss Sunshine, but because it gained notoriety for its audacious inclusion of a rape scene of 12-year old Dakota Fanning.

The brief rape scene, which revealed Fanning’s arms, legs, shoulders and face while screaming “stop it!” multiple times during the violent attack, was described by the producers and some critics as being “tastefully and eloquently done.” This claim is about as ridiculous as Bill Clinton’s Grand Jury testimony. Their remarks concerning the scene reveals the lack of morals and scruples the production team possesses. There is, in fact, nothing eloquent nor tasteful about child rape — especially when the actor playing the victim is a child.

As many bewildered Americans balk Hollywood’s latest antics, the first reaction is to attempt to inculpate the appropriate party. Acutely deserving of blame is the director and producer of the film. There are many different ways to convey the message of child rape than to actually include a 12-year-old child acting out a rape. I argue this not because America is a country of fragile psyche and prefers not to address uncomfortable issues but rather out of decency and sensitivity for Fanning. The producers claim the scene was intended to illustrate the atrocities of child rape and bring it to the forefront of social problems in America. While a noble cause, the more likely reason behind their nihilism of all ethical regards for Fanning was probably their insidious desire to generate a profit. Their film conjured a controversy, which caused mass media publicity, which will in turn lead to thousands of people viewing the low-budget film. In addition, the producers are lobbying not only for their film to be picked up by a mainstream production company, but for Fanning to be nominated for an Oscar! These repercussions for their “noble” cause would put their grisly “art” on the main radar screen and, of course, raise them up a tax bracket or two.

If the producer’s motive for the rape scene was genuine, it was an immoral and wrong decision to use such a young actor. First, its impossible for a 12-year-old to understand the social and psychological repercussions of rape; therefore, it was irresponsible to immerse Fanning in a role that was too adult for her. The production team should have used an older, more mature girl in lieu of Fanning, or they could have focused on other aspects of rape — such as victim recovery — instead of a revealing rape scene. This would equally illustrate the damaging effects of rape without putting a child through a traumatic experience.

Regardless of irresponsible production decisions, even a disgusting, ingénue producer cannot create a film without actors. This begs the question as to why Fanning accepted the role (after other child actors previously turned it down). The only answer is parenting — or, more appropriately, the lack thereof. While Fanning’s films have grossed millions of dollars and she is a very talented, promising and mature 12-year-old, the problem is just that: she is a 12-year-old child. Sixth and seventh-grade children are going through a life transition where they need parental guidance more than anything. Instead of shielding their child from a potentially scarring experience, Fanning’s parents all too quickly accepted the role and imperiled their child hoping for more immediate fame instead of questioning potential long-term effects.

What is worse in some respects is that Fanning, even after doing the scene, seems to not understand the gravity of rape and its repercussions. Pretending to be raped could have traumatic negative psychological effects on such a young girl. If Fanning is indeed a prodigal actor, she will have many more years to tackle provocative, controversial and other social “statement” roles. However, her naivete and lack of guidance was exploided by her parents, who live vicariously through her successes.

While the Hounddog rape scene is disturbing in many facets, the most unsettling repercussion is its threatening potential. Child rape and abuse is a troubling issue in America and it has taken much less propaganda than mainstream rape scenes to entice lascivious behavior from malcontents. According to the Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network, one person is sexually assaulted every two-and-a-half minutes in America. Films such as Hounddog, which focus on the rape itself instead of the negative consequences to the victim and apprehension of the assailant, foster no deterrent to this trend.

Many religious pundits have called for the canceling of the film and for a federal probe investigating if any child pornography laws were violated. Even if the film did not violate any federal or state laws, it unequivocally violated much deeper, and in some senses, more concrete morality laws. The film should also serve as a wake-up call to the degradation and decadence of Hollywood and American media. In an age where nudity and explicit language is on prime time network television and child rape scenes are entering mainstream cinema, one should question the moral direction of America. Compare today’s media decency with that of decades ago. What would be the reaction if Shirley Temple had done a similar scene at her age?

Unfortunately, instead being a positive, constructive, social statement film, Hounddog’s lack of dignity casts a dark shadow on Hollywood, independent films and any cinematic “art” that emerged from Sundance this year.

Carl Menzel is a senior in the College of Arts and Sciences. He can be contacted at cdm38@cornell.edu. Southern Style appears alternate Wednesdays.