DHP Review: Towelhead
Posted by Dirty Harry on Thursday, July 24th, 2008
During the Q&A, after a sneak preview of Towelhead, writer/director Alan Ball said of child rape, “Society wants us to believe that’s a soul destroying event, I don’t believe that.” The context of such an incendiary statement is important and can be found in his film, the story of a thirteen year old Arab girl, Jasira, (Summer Bishil) who‘s raped by her Army Reservist next door neighbor (Aaron Eckhart), molested by her mother‘s boyfriend, and sexually manipulated by Thomas (Eugene Bradley), a young man she goes to school with. When it’s all over, not only is her soul intact but she suffers no emotional or psychological damage whatsoever. To quote Ball, the “experience makes her stronger.” She’s empowered sexually (at 13) and the film ends on what’s meant to be a triumphant note when she decides on a relationship with Thomas.
Set somewhere in Texas at the height of the first Gulf War, Towelhead has no real story. It’s a two-hour series of quick scenes obsessing over Jasira’s sexual, physical, emotional, and racial abuse at the hands of everyone but the two thoughtful hippies who live next door. When not being abused, Jasira, in a series of provocative scenes focusing on her bare, mini-skirted legs, enjoys a sexual awakening giving herself orgasms while looking at pictures of naked women in porn magazines.
Just a heads up that from here on in things will be explicit.
The film opens on Jasira wearing only a bra and panties. Shaving cream’s smeared on her thighs so mom’s boyfriend can shave her pubic area. Jasira understands what’s happening, and as with all the sexual abuse she’ll face, there’s a part of her that obviously enjoys it. Later, Thomas will shave her … without her wearing panties.
Upon discovering what happened, Mom (Maria Bello), a crucifix wearing Christian, doesn’t toss the boyfriend, she blames Jasira and ships her off to Texas to live with her father Rifat, (Peter Macdissi), a Lebanese born American who works for NASA and hates Saddam. It’s made clear to us immediately that Rifat is not a Muslim, but also a Christian. It’s made clear just before he smacks Jasira harshly across the face for dressing provocatively.
At school none of the Texas “rubes” can pronounce Jasira’s name correctly, not even her teachers. Instead, the students call her “sand nigger” and “diaper head.” This includes Thomas, but in a bit of lazy characterization he immediately apologizes and only a few scenes later is feeling the young girl up in his parents’ living room on Christmas day.
After school Jasira babysits for Zack Vuosos, the ten year old boy next door who calls her “towelhead” and introduces her to the sex magazines. Zack’s mother, Mrs. Vuoso, is yet-another cinematic, stereotyped Stepford Mom Of The Suburbs, and Mr Vuoso (Eckhart) ritually flies the American flag by day, takes it down and folds it by night, and with little effort seduces a willing Jasira.
The first sexual encounter between Vuosa and Jasira occurs in the foyer of her home where he takes her virginity with his fingers. The lighting, choreography, and feel of the scene is meant to give the audience an erotic charge, to make us complicit. The camera lingers on Jasira’s long hair and bare legs as she alternately moans and protests. The nasty affair doesn’t end until Eckart removes his hand from the young girl’s skirt and we see the tips of his fingers coated with menstrual blood. Later, he’ll full on rape her, but not until after we’re treated to a striptease presented and photographed like something right out of late night Cinemax.
As Jasira, Summer Bishi was 18 at the time of production but is utterly convincing as a thirteen year old. But other than her ability to convey innocence, her performance is the weakest in the film. You never get a sense for who this girl is, what she’s thinking, or why she‘s such a willing victim. In the end, after all she’s been through, she seems completely unchanged: kinda sweet, kinda dumb, ready to be exploited again.
For a film directed by an Oscar-winning screenwriter (American Beauty) and successful television producer (Six Feet Under), Towelhead is horribly produced. Shot digitally, it looks it in most every frame. Poor lighting and set design only add to a cheap, washed out experience. The score’s even worse: quirky and intrusive, it sounds like something off a home computer.
All of this adds up to what was the ugliest film experience of my life. Everyone around me enjoyed themselves enormously (grotesquely, much of the film is presented as a comedy) as I sat there shell shocked that a director would shoot, not from a predatory character’s point of view, but his own point of view, a thirteen year old character as though she were a centerfold model. Whatever issues Mr. Ball’s hoping to work out here, the end result is an artistically bankrupt, morally indefensible, piece of exploitation that should attract every raincoat-wearing deviant into theatres when Warner Independent releases it September 20th.
Filed in Movie Reviews |
Megon 24 Jul 2008 at 6:50 pm 1“I hate it when porn tries to have a story” - Randy Marsh, South Park
Stephanieon 24 Jul 2008 at 6:51 pm 2Great now I will have nightmares about this crap…hell and I thought Harvey Dents injuries were Aaron Eckhardts bad side….wtf? Great no nightmares about the Joker and he would at least have made me laugh……I need to take a shower now.
Mavison 24 Jul 2008 at 6:52 pm 3At the risk of sounding like a thirteen year old girl, this movie just sounds gross. I just can’t imagine how a variety of people (the director, producers, actors, key grip, janitor) thought this movie was worth their time and effort. Thirteen year old girls don’t need this kind of fuel for perverts.
Furious Don 24 Jul 2008 at 7:06 pm 4This strikes me as yet another attempt by someone to be “edgy” instead of creative.
When you have no original ideas, whip up some controversy, hopefully about sexual taboos and politics, and the critics will hail your “courage” and cry censorship when no one will pay money to see it.
Mike Kriskeyon 24 Jul 2008 at 7:15 pm 5I smell Oscar!
Mareon 24 Jul 2008 at 7:19 pm 6I think it is sinister when a director will add comedy, certain lighting, choreography, etc., in order to disarm you from what should be complete revulsion.
I wonder if anyone who laughed and enjoyed the movie who has daughters got home, got into bed and said “…wait a minute, I just enjoyed watching a 13 year old girl get raped, abused and manipulated and she seems fine with that.” In a way they got tricked into appreciating the event.
This is a mainstreaming of abuse and rape. Kind of like the way media mainstreams threesomes, porn, teenage sex. The list gets longer.
It’s pathetic so many people signed on to express the “directors vision”.
Addison DeWitton 24 Jul 2008 at 7:23 pm 7I started to type out a long post on the meaning and purpose of transgressive art (think “piss christ”), but screw it- they’re not worth the effort. Suffice it to say, the transgressive artist hates everything moral and decent because morality and decency dare to establish a standard that the “artist” might not live up to. What small bitter people.
steevyon 24 Jul 2008 at 7:28 pm 8Satan no doubt heartily approves of this film and gets a great big belly laugh over it…..
Kiton 24 Jul 2008 at 7:47 pm 9Has Hollywood lost its creative edge?
Why not do a story about a woman trying to overcome her abuse?
And one that refrains from being a whiny “Men are evil” Lifetime movie please.
Kiton 24 Jul 2008 at 7:48 pm 10Boy this movie will certainly endear the Middle East to Hollywood!
Fiftyfooton 24 Jul 2008 at 7:54 pm 11What would you expect from a toilet stall gropecock like Alan Ball? Degradation likes company.
Carlitoson 24 Jul 2008 at 8:05 pm 12Behold Hollywood “courage”.
JohnLockeon 24 Jul 2008 at 8:26 pm 13Well aren’t we lucky. We get child porn and “Rock Me Sexy Jesus” all in the same year.
Y’know what? The day this movie comes out, I’m gonna go out and see “The Dark Knight” again. I will find a theater still running it and I’ll go see it. Just to stick it to the man.
Johnon 24 Jul 2008 at 8:34 pm 14My guess is they’re hoping to make some money from the curiosity seekers by creating controversy about the movie. They just have to hope that the protest come from conservative groups (easy for them to then get the media to demonize as moralistic, bible-thumping prudes) and not from groups championing women’s rights or combating child abuse (not even the most liberal media outlets will try come to the defense of “Towelhead” if it means going against children’s rights advocates).
Splashon 24 Jul 2008 at 8:35 pm 15Has Hollywood lost its creative edge?
That’s…kinda…the least of our problems here.
As Mare alluded to, these are common degenerates out to justify themselves and drag the rest of us down with them until standards have been flattened enough to create a new, perverted “normal.”
Basically The Joker with designated parking and a three-picture deal.
Unbelievable.
Splashon 24 Jul 2008 at 8:36 pm 16Just read your ‘Dark Knight’ comment, JohnLocke. I guess great minds really do think alike.
Maxtypeon 24 Jul 2008 at 8:47 pm 17Absolutely disgusting.
I’ve known a girl who was sexually abused around that age.We were very close when we were in Junior year.The abuse ALMOST destroyed her,but by the Grace of God,my friend was too strong,too funny,and had too much love inside her heart to let it happen.
I consider it an honor to have been her friend.
For the scum that made this film,I wouldn’t spit on you if you were on fire.
Stephen Tilsonon 24 Jul 2008 at 8:51 pm 18Alan Ball should have to answer personally for all the kids who are going to be abused as a result of adults watching this movie and going “Hey, they’re really all right with it after all.”
And by “answer,” I mean “die.”
Kendamaon 24 Jul 2008 at 9:12 pm 19“Society wants us to believe that’s a soul destroying event, I don’t believe that.” — Alan Ball
Really? Walk up to someone who had been abused as a child and say that to their face. Please, tell them that all the pain and shame of being sexually violated (no matter what the age) is just an illusion, just brainwashing by the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy.
There’s a reason why society wants us to believe that rape is a soul destroying event. The reason: human rights. We have a right not to be physically assaulted, and to defend ourselves from said assaults. We certainly have a right to not be forced into sex we don’t want.
Moon 24 Jul 2008 at 9:15 pm 20What a filthy piece of trash. I’m sorry you had to sit through this.
How can the people involved with this not have felt some shame? Someone on that set must have children of their own, don’t you think?
Ugh, I feel sick just having read this review.
misterdon 24 Jul 2008 at 9:46 pm 21While I don’t disagree with the statement that such an assault need not be “soul destroying”, which, to me, implies not just damage but an inability to ever recover, or that a person who goes through such trials could emerge stronger for them (which one could say about anyone who has survived something horrific), but it sounds to me that, as portrayed in this film, that there is no damage, no tauma, no long lasting scars, which, to me, is something else entirely. If your account is accurate, then I don’t for the life of me understand how this film was even made.
MovieBobon 24 Jul 2008 at 10:01 pm 22“During the Q&A, after a sneak preview of Towelhead, writer/director Alan Ball said of child rape, “Society wants us to believe that’s a soul destroying event, I don’t believe that.””
Yeegh… Y’know, I’ve never heard that Alan Ball is anything other than a decent dude… that and having never met the guy personally inclines me to give him the benefit of the doubt - i.e. that his intent with this statement is more along the lines of “you don’t have to be destroyed by this” and not “meh, child-rape ain’t so bad.”
I do recognize, of course, that I do so as one who does not consider it a given that those with sexual proclivities or opinions not my own (Ball is gay, yes? Or am I mistaken) are automatically ALSO child-predators or in league with the same… making me, evidently, something of a rare bird in these parts, so there’s that. BUT even still… GAH! Either I’m wrong and he’s a nut, or I’m right and he’s profoundly bad at word-choice when it comes to sensitive topics.
FWIW, the overall critique mirrors just about everything I’ve heard about this movie: i.e. it’s just Ball working the same “shock to convention” mojo that he’s made his name on but this time without much really going-on underneath all the “freaking out the squares.” I mean, even John Waters usually has a POINT.
That all said…
Stephen Tilson
“Alan Ball should have to answer personally for all the kids who are going to be abused as a result of adults watching this movie and going “Hey, they’re really all right with it after all.””
Really, now, nothing good comes of such hyperbole despite how disturbed you may be by the description of the film. You’re operating a keyboard and reading, so you’ve GOT to be much too intelligent to believe such things. No one is going to be raped “as a result” of this or any other movie, just as no one has ever been SHOT “as a result” of Yosemite Sam or STABBED “as a result” of Zorro.
Child rapists are SEVERELY disturbed individuals, human beings malfunctioning on a profound level - no one who is going to committ such an atrocity is sitting around waiting for Spirit Award Bait to make up his mind. Just think about the logistics of the scenario you’re suggesting: Can you picture some subhuman creep sitting around thinking “Y’know, I’d decided against chasing down, abducting and violating a child because it seemed like lots of work and I had the nagging suspicion the victim wouldn’t be totally into it… But now that low-budget indie movie that never actually opened, screened or even trailered anywhere NEAR where I live has TOTALLY changed my mind! I’m gonna go for it!” C’mon, now. You’re only hurting your own point.
stillerson 24 Jul 2008 at 10:04 pm 23Its nice to see that Christians are not stereotyped in this film. You’d think the director would be worried about irking Christians with this film. There is nothing for frightening than rampaging Methodists!!
“writer/director Alan Ball said of child rape, “Society wants us to believe that’s a soul destroying event, I don’t believe that.””
So, sexually abused children are now stronger because of it? Um, thats wrong on too many levels.
whiskeyon 24 Jul 2008 at 10:24 pm 24Moviebob — no less than George Clooney asserts that movies DO have an impact: on creating social attitudes that help end racism, sexism, and the like (legally, through mobilization of public opinion). Certainly gay groups give out awards to writers and producers for depicting positively gays on screen, as a means to combat anti-gay prejudice.
The same is true for the NAACP (Spirit Awards) and various Mexican/Latino organizations.
So if movies and TV have positive effects like the awards givers and recipients CLAIM THEY DO, then they also have NEGATIVE effects. It is the height of irresponsibility to claim the positive and disavow the negative.
It is also childish.
This film sucks. It sucks not only because of the subject matter but because it exists only to shock. It’s even more morally bankrupt than Saw III, or Hostel II. At least those films have no moral or artistic pretense and exist only to cater to base appetites. Yes. Eli Roth has more integrity than Alan Ball.
Jimboon 24 Jul 2008 at 10:58 pm 25Definutly a movie I will miss. I noticed no score. I am guessing it doesn’t deserve one
MovieBobon 25 Jul 2008 at 2:14 am 26whiskey
“Moviebob — no less than George Clooney asserts that movies DO have an impact: on creating social attitudes that help end racism, sexism, and the like (legally, through mobilization of public opinion). Certainly gay groups give out awards to writers and producers for depicting positively gays on screen, as a means to combat anti-gay prejudice.”
And if the impact Clooney and others speak of was as immediate and definate as the theoretical impact Stephen was postulating (”Alan Ball should have to answer personally for all the kids who are going to be abused as a result of adults watching this movie…”) racism, sexism and the like would’ve ended immediately and permanently once said films had been released.
I was not speaking of, nor responding to, a question of whether or not the film had a negative message and/or sent the wrong message. Someone posted, in no uncertain terms, their belief that the existance of this movie was going to DIRECTLY lead to children being abused in real life. I offered my opinion that this person was being, well… ridiculous.
Nickolas Dilmoreon 25 Jul 2008 at 2:55 am 27Jeez– did the Romans write plays about child rape to be “edgy?”
JohnFNWayneon 25 Jul 2008 at 3:39 am 28The loathing, conceit and mental illness on display should be shocking but it isn’t - just typical Hollywood.
Of course she moved to “Texas.” Of course it was an Army Reservist. Of course it’s Christians, of course it’s hippies, of course, of course …
Another film from Hollywood projecting its own sickness and moral vacuum upon flyover country.
magdajhawthorneon 25 Jul 2008 at 5:00 am 29The problem here is that plenty of people already think that 13 and 14 year olds are not children when it comes to sex and it’s disingenuous to lump men who want to have sex with a post-pubescent 14 year old teenager with men who want to have sex with pre-pubescent 5 or 9 year olds. Clinically they are not the same.
The 13 and 14 year olds I know who were abused were not hunted down and abducted but were coerced and seduced by boys only slightly older than them or men who they knew and who thought of them as teenagers, not children.
Growing up in an environment were almost all of my 14-year-old friends were sexually active with boys who were 17, 18, or even 21 and 22, I can tell you that those boys and men were “normal” American boys and men — not child rapists (at least not clinically; though probably we all would agree that technically and legally they were) — who thought that 13 and 14 year olds were their peers and could have consensual sex with them — if only the girls could be ‘convinced.’
That’s the kind of abuse that is absolutely going to be egged on by this movie. And it might even help convince some girls that it’s not a bad thing to have sex at that age and lower their resistance (if anyone has resistance anymore in this culture). And if you doubt that, then friend, you grew up in a much nicer world than I did and you should thank God every day.
Harry, I’m glad you posted this review, it’s a very disturbing topic but important.
fiestamomon 25 Jul 2008 at 6:01 am 30Why make this film? I’m just a rube in flyover country who doesn’t understand the nuance of child rape, so of course I don’t understand my betters in Hollywood. Not surprised the American Flag is flown high at the perp’s house. And the crucifix is worn by the mother who fails to protect her kid.
nightflyon 25 Jul 2008 at 6:26 am 31I’m going to go throw up now. Hopefully I can hit Alan Ball.
Stickwick Staperson 25 Jul 2008 at 6:52 am 32No one is going to be raped “as a result” of this or any other movie, just as no one has ever been SHOT “as a result” of Yosemite Sam or STABBED “as a result” of Zorro.
Interesting choices, Bob. You chose a children’s cartoon character and a hero to make your point. One is completely unrealistic, the other is supposed to inspire people to, you know, help others.
And how do you know no one is going to be raped as a result of this movie? Something like this isn’t going to turn a normal man into a pedophile, but it does make implications that could grant license to someone already considering it. Furthermore, enough of this stuff has a gradual impact on society to the point that they are morally worn down and no longer look at child exploitation as such an egregious thing. Look at all the exploitative stuff for children these days, like the Bratz dolls (and Baby Bratz dolls that sexualize infants), the Beyonce line of children’s clothing, the photos of Miley Cyrus. The list goes on and on. You can’t tell me that this doesn’t eventually have an impact on people. If it didn’t, Madison Avenue is wasting billions of dollars every year.
Brad Son 25 Jul 2008 at 7:41 am 33It’s this simple: Warner Independent, Alan Ball, and the cast of this movie need to face economic and social ruin for making this piece of garbage that justifies child molestation.
For starters, Alan Ball needs to have the “Society wants us to believe that’s a soul destroying event, I don’t believe that…the experience makes her stronger.” quote played back repeatedly every time he gets so much as a paragraph of media coverage. Aaron Eckhart needs to have that photograph above plastered on every media story. These people need to be SHAMED. Warner Independent should be facing nationwide boycotts over this transgression.
You all need to man-up and get to it to ensure this happens.
Stephanieon 25 Jul 2008 at 8:01 am 34Look a little history lesson: Rape has been a form of warfare for thousands of years. When the Vikings attacked coastal towns they abducted the women and raped them. Romans looted, burned, took booty and raped women and brought them into slavery. Its a signature of dominance. Think of Serbs raping Bosnian women. They knew if those girls became pregnant or their men discovered they had been violated whether they were willing or not the women were no good. In a sense another victory. That being said it does not make rape right at all.
Also the idea that older men seduce young boys (14-15 years of age) is a theme that occurs a lot in Gay culture. They would never admit it but it happens. It happens to a lot of them. Hence their issues with certain things, and it came right out Alan Ball’s mouth. It happens with young girls to.
This movie just gives a seal of approval.
Templaron 25 Jul 2008 at 8:11 am 35Whiskey
Certainly gay groups give out awards to writers and producers for depicting positively gays on screen, as a means to combat anti-gay prejudice.
As a means to combat normative rationalism, you mean.
Uchuck the Tuchuckon 25 Jul 2008 at 8:38 am 36Fiestamom asked why anyone would make a movie like this.
Why would anyone watch a movie like this?
Would you like to invite them into your home? Sit down to dinner with them? Even live next to them?
Uchuck the Tuchuckon 25 Jul 2008 at 8:43 am 37By the way, that’s not a dig at Fiestamom, merely an elaboration of her initial question.
tranquilitason 25 Jul 2008 at 8:45 am 38I doubt Ball’s motives (jeepers if there ever was a person defined by his name)…if he really wanted to do a movie about a girl who over came such difficulties he could have done it less salaciously…
Dylan Brunson 25 Jul 2008 at 9:57 am 39Um, why haven’t feminists been complaining about this? Its the old, she really wants it crap. Nothing new, rapists always say that. Alan Ball has the mentality of a rapist, if not the will to act on it. So he makes movies glorifying it.
So, the question is, how is this legal? I kinda thought child pornography was more about intent than how old the porn star was.
Audietooon 25 Jul 2008 at 10:02 am 40Movie Bob: are you a psychologist. You sound just like many I have listened to in my professional life. If we all sing I
want to Hold Your Hand will you forgive us for being upset by child pornography.
As for Alan Ball’s motive maybe we should once again look to Europe where there are efforts to lower the age of consent to 13.
Jenn O'Haraon 25 Jul 2008 at 10:18 am 41Great, now I feel dirty just having read this review, most of which I ended up skimming. (Not your fault, Harry). But your closing paragraph is what really makes me sick and sad. So, what, we’re normalizing child rape now? Making it look like they enjoy it…or like they should?
*shudder*
The Almighty Turtleon 25 Jul 2008 at 10:58 am 42Ok. I was holding out some SLIVER of hope that this would actually not be completely monstrous from my interpretation of the quote.
I agree with Misterd (having known some who have been subject to such… sickening treatment), that it is not necessarily something that one cannot recover from, or something that one cannot come out stronger having suffered.
But, while I think that it is not necessarily a soul-destroying event, it IS very much a soul-CRUSHING event. Those who experience it (and no, I am not talking about 17-year old 5 days from her 18th birthday who decides, in a consenting fashion, to “get it” early with her boyfriend, but ACTUAL, bona-fide child rape) usually do not come out all sunshine.
They suffer from depression, self-blame, and many even kill themselves. In many cases, the sufferers are shunned by their family or friends, and it is a perfect storm of despair.
It is NOT something that is nice or light, and I was hoping that this film would actually take this seriously. Apparently, my faith in the humanity of Hollywood remains too high.
Why anybody would actually want to DEVISE this project is something I cannot understand. Why anybody would actually carry this project out in this fashion is something that I HOPE I will NEVER understand.
If they had to pick this project up in order to pay the bills, I would understand (to an extent). But there is no way that is true.
Instead of making, say, a dark comedy about recovery, survival, the triumph of the human spirit over abuse, and (perhaps) justice, they apparently made some sickening apology for the sexual exploitation of pre-pubescent girls (and underage boys, by extension).
This goes beyond simple Conservative VS Liberal arguments. I know a few dyed-in-the-wool, Bush-is-Hitler Liberals who would not sink to the level of justifying this.
But Hollywood has decided to do so.
Because, after all, a Moral Core is overrated.
I think I am going to be sick.
GeronimoRmplstltsknon 25 Jul 2008 at 11:01 am 43So statuatory rape and/or forced rape is not only NOT a “soul-destroying event”, but it actually makes the victim stronger? I guess all those Catholic priests are off the hook then, huh?
Chritianity: Hate the sin (pedophilia), love the sinner (priests).
Hollywood: Love the sin (pedophilia), hate the sinner (priests).
(And yes, I am aware that less than 1% of Catholic priests were involved in these cases. I just don’t think Hollywood will show the victims of their abuse as “stronger” for it, do you?)
So let’s see how the movie did on the “Hollywood point-of-view” checklist:
Mom blames daughter for sex with Mom’s boyfriend
Christians as wrong-headed: Check
Texas “rubes”…call her “sand nigger” and “diaper head.”
Red-staters as racists: Check
It’s made clear [that her father is a Christian] just before he smacks Jasira harshly across the face for dressing provocatively
Christians as abusive: Check
Mr. Vuoso (Eckhart) ritually flies the American flag by day, takes it down and folds it by night, and with little effort seduces a willing Jasira.
Patriotic person is really a pervert: Check
…racial abuse at the hands of everyone but the two thoughtful hippies who live next door
Hippies good, red-staters and/or Christians bad: Check
Later, he’ll full on rape her, but not until after we’re treated to a striptease…
Sexualization of teenager presented as “empowering”: Check
In the end, after all she’s been through, she seems completely unchanged….
Sex, especially involving minors, has no consequences: Check
Throw in a couple of secular humanist European lesbians, and some commentary on how George Bush has ruined the world, and this movie would have been Hollywood nirvana. Where are the secular humanist European lesbians when you need them?
MovieBobon 25 Jul 2008 at 11:04 am 44Stickwick
“Interesting choices, Bob. You chose a children’s cartoon character and a hero to make your point. One is completely unrealistic, the other is supposed to inspire people to, you know, help others.”
Yes, almost as though I had carefully selected examples that anyone acting prudently could agree were completely idiotic in order to illustrate my point.
“And how do you know no one is going to be raped as a result of this movie?”
The same way I know that if I step outside and throw an egg against a stone wall the wall will survive: Common sense and an entire human history’s worth of previous evidence.
If you can show me the laboratory test whereupon someone discovered a movie, book, song, etc. that is going to directly CAUSE violence, rape, crime etc. as a direct result of it’s broadcast, showing, display or what have you this argument would be over and you’d win, decisively. You cannot, because it doesn’t exist, it has not existed and WILL never exist no matter how much Socialists, moralists and other freedom-hating busybodies desperately want for it to exist.
Striker Zon 25 Jul 2008 at 11:37 am 45The main body of work I know Alan Ball from is Six Feet Under, which, among other interesting thoughts on life, had this amusing triple standard -
Gay Man In Relationship Sleeps With Multiple Partners - Healthy, normal, and can help maintain relationship.
Straight Man In Relationship Sleeps With Multiple Partners - Somewhat immoral, but an understandable way to work through stressful issues.
Straight Woman In Relationship Sleeps With Multiple Partners - ZOMG ADDICTION!!!!!!! SLUT!! WHORE!! HUSSY!!
Don’t get me wrong, I enjoyed the series, but I hardly considered it ‘the best tv series ever’, as some of the hype about it claimed. I also think it gives a decent picture of how those behind the camera view the world - a viewpoint that’s, well, pretty detached from reality. (You don’t like wearing tights? Oh no, what will you- JUST WEAR PANTS, MORON!!)
Now, I agree with Bob in that I don’t see this directly causing any child molestation - that’s the kind of influence that I don’t think movies have. I can, however, imagine this film being trotted out by, say….NAMBLA, to help them make their ‘point’. I’ve heard that ‘History Boys’, a mediocre flick that happened to have lots of teens eager to have sex with the nearest willing authority figure*, is used in a similar way.
*Yes, slight hyperbole, but I’ve seen the flick and it’s kinda lame.
wanketteon 25 Jul 2008 at 12:00 pm 46I see this going down the same path as the Dakota Fanning film from last year. (the title escapes me, and I’m actually okay with that!) vis. to wit.: obscurity.
Blancon 25 Jul 2008 at 1:26 pm 47Was I surprised to find this movie well-reviewed? Of course not! I almost want to become one of those sandwich board guys with a ‘the end is nigh’ sign. “Thirteen year old sexuality is a GOOD THING if handled right!!!” Here ya go…
———————————————————–
Film Threat: Being a teen sucks. Being a teen that is of another race can suck even more in a land as narrow-minded as this one. Yet this film does a good job of putting it all into perspective with a lot of heart.
Screen Rant: Short version: Towelhead manages to balance humor and drama in this cautionary tale of a 13 year old girl’s burgeoning sexuality.
Reel.com: …child sex abuse being probably the hardest of a hard sell. Ball is to be commended for taking the risk and this film is well worth seeking out for those who can get past their squeamishness.
Some idiot Eric guy: Bad things happen in this film, no question. But Ball is not interested in being shocking just for the sake of being shocking. Nothing is gratuitous, and nothing is so bad that it can’t be overcome in the end.
————————————————————
I guess I just need to get past my squeamishness, huh?
The fact that my 16 year old son has such a mature view of sexuality (but not an ‘adult’ one thank goodness - he thinks Megan Fox is ‘hot’ but knows sex doesn’t have anyplace in his life for the foreseeable future) is almost a miracle living in this twisted world. I look at my incredible, beautiful, innocent 3 year old daughter in the light of things like this movie and know, despite my desire to manifest love and peace in all my dealings, that I am capable of murder. I hate this world.
Blancon 25 Jul 2008 at 1:29 pm 48Oh, by the way, I thought it interesting that all those positive reviews noted that the actress was 18 when the film was made. If the beauty of the burgeoning sexuality of a thirteen year old is such a common and wonderful thing why the qualifier?
Stickwick Staperson 25 Jul 2008 at 2:11 pm 49almost as though I had carefully selected examples that anyone acting prudently could agree were completely idiotic in order to illustrate my point
It didn’t illustrate your point, because context counts. Violence in the context of protecting the innocent, or in the context of a silly cartoon, will have an entirely different effect on any one with an IQ above that of lettuce than violence shown in a predatory and realistic context.
As for the rest of it, I can’t point to any instance in which it is directly provable that watching something has lead someone to do evil. I don’t believe that it ever would lead someone who does not have those proclivities to do something evil. But, I don’t think you have a case that this kind of stuff doesn’t give license to people already inclined to do these things, i.e. perverts looking for justification for their immoral behavior, as almost all perverts do. Every single time, without fail, that I have engaged some pervert in argument about the morality of his behavior, he’s got all kinds of justifications — how such-and-such shows that it’s healthy (or not destructive), how it’s beneficial or harmless to other people involved, how it’s actually unhealthy to deny themselves, etc., etc.
This garbage also has the effect of eroding moral standards in general. There’s always a line that most people are not willing to cross and will not tolerate others crossing. What movies like Towelhead — and the sentiments of their makers — do is push that line further and further out.
You seem to conflate the need for objective standards of morality with hatred of freedom, and yet the latter can’t exist without the former.
Stickwick Staperson 25 Jul 2008 at 2:15 pm 50Blanc — I would love to observe an alternate reality in which we could remake Towelhead with atheists and peaceniks in place of the Christians and patriots and see how well-reviewed this movie would be.
GeronimoRmplstltsknon 25 Jul 2008 at 2:22 pm 51Reading about this film and the great reviews it has received, I now completely understand God’s whole “I think I’ll destroy humanity with a flood” line of thinking.
Hollywood Reporter: “Alternately disturbing, laceratingly satirical and affectingly poignant, the film…is very much a companion piece to the Ball-penned “American Beauty” in its unwavering examination of the dirty little secrets and raging hypocrisies lurking just beyond all those manicured suburban lawns.”
What is it with Hollywood and Suburbia? I’d love to take some odds on which is creepier, real suburbia or Ball’s imagination.
Reel.com: “Ball is to be commended for taking the risk and this film is well worth seeking out for those who can get past their squeamishness.”
So if I just get past my hang-up about adults having sex with children, it’s an enjoyable evening at the movies?
Film Threat: “Being a teen sucks. Being a teen that is of another race can suck even more in a land as narrow-minded as this one. Yet this film does a good job of putting it all into perspective with a lot of heart.”
Oh, and a lot of child rape.
If anyone needs me, I’ll be outside building an ark.
CCW1970on 25 Jul 2008 at 2:28 pm 52They have to give the qualifier so they don’t come across as pedophiles themselves. This is both disgusting and pathetic, as most of us who read this blog could have predicted the critics response to this film.
A friend of mine has a movie review blog and she gave it a rave review today (of course, she also thinks Ball’s Oscar for American Beauty was well deserved). We’ll be arguing about this next time I see her.
Steph, some of my gay friends are honest enough to admit that the “initiation” thing for young boys is quite prevalent and probably contribtes to later promiscuity and STDs. Oen of them was even honest enough to admit that many gay men’s freedowm with sexual partners resulted in numerous AIDS deaths.
CCW1970on 25 Jul 2008 at 2:29 pm 53Should be “One of them.” Damn these fingers!
Kiton 25 Jul 2008 at 2:31 pm 54So, LAW & ORDER: SVU is the only show to say that rape can actually cause problems for the sufferer.
Countless episodes have mentioned
There was one (great) tv movie about the lawsuits agains the Catholic Church following the pedophilia scandal that mentioned several people who killed themselves after they were raped.
So, according to Hollywood, unless your rapist is a Catholic priest, you’ll be fine!
I want to say, however, that the tv movie about the lawsuits was a very good drama. (Cardinal Law should have been removed for his handling of those “priests.”)
Stephen Tilsonon 25 Jul 2008 at 3:05 pm 55MovieBob, untwist your panties. Of course I don’t think anybody’s going to commit child rape SOLELY because of this movie. But I do think it can help break down inhibitions some viewers might have against it, and in that way it can certainly contribute.
Why didn’t I thus nuance my post to begin with? Perhaps because I’m posting from a volatile connection and never know when I’m going to be able to actually post something, so I tend to make quick posts without writing full theoretical analyses of every permutation of every jot and tittle. Or perhaps, you know, it’s because I expected anybody who would grasp that I’m intelligent (keyboard, words, etc) might also give me enough credit to believe that I might be intelligent enough to KNOW that even an action as evil as child rape has multiple motivations. Or even that you, sir, might summon the moral substance to be more outraged with Alan Ball than with a post on a blog’s comments. After all, I suggested only that someone be killed who is GUILTY of a heinous crime against a defenseless victim. Not that the victims are, hey, not really victims after all.
Blancon 25 Jul 2008 at 4:08 pm 56Mankind is imperfect. Just about everybody agrees with this (although there are different theories as to the ‘why’). One of the manifestations of that imperfection is that we sometimes struggle with thoughts and inclinations that we want control over. Exposure to images and suggestions has to erode that control, doesn’t it?
For most of us maybe we avoid watching Emeril whip up some arterial-clogging yummy so that our will-power stays intact and our waistband doesn’t lose it’s elasticity. What about an honorable man who struggles with feelings he considers improper in a world that considers a movie like this entertainment? Yes, the people behind this are fully culpable.
jmcon 25 Jul 2008 at 4:39 pm 57Slightly off topic - Is that just a strange facial expression by Maria Bello in the picture, or did she have some work done? I hope it was the former; I think she’s gorgeous naturally.
Sharpshinyon 25 Jul 2008 at 8:34 pm 58Between visits to the vomitorium, what I’m wondering is how does Hollywood whitewash a movie like “Sum of All Fears” for fear that it will offend Muslims, then greenlight a movie like “Towelhead.”
Don’t they realize that actual Muslims would be a million times more offended by “Towelhead” than by a faithful adaptation of “Sum of All Fears”?
Where is CAIR in all this?
MovieBobon 25 Jul 2008 at 10:06 pm 59Stickwick
“But, I don’t think you have a case that this kind of stuff doesn’t give license to people already inclined to do these things, i.e. perverts looking for justification for their immoral behavior, as almost all perverts do.”
I’ll first cop to the fact that you are, demonstrably, more experienced in arguing these points with actual perverts so I’m more than happy to defer to your expertise as to what they have to say for themselves.
That said… I’m sorry, I don’t buy it. And not just because I make it a habit not to take the mentally ill at their word.
We’re not talking about buying one brand of slacks over another here. We’re talking about violent crime. Rape, murder, what have you. Those are EXTREME acts. If you’ve got it in you to do that and you’re aiming toward doing that… I’m sorry, I just can’t logically hash-out ANY movie, book or whatever being the deciding “nudge” between “I’m gonna go rape my neighbor’s six year-old” and “Naw, I think I’ll have some soup instead.” The math just ain’t there.
Now, will there be perverts who CLAIM something like this sent them over the edge after the fact? Not a doubt in my mind. Will there be many of them who actually BELIEVE this themselves as part of some cowardly guilt-avoiding self-delusion? You betcha. But, like I said, I make it a habit of not taking the sick and twisted at their word on such matters.
00smoothieon 26 Jul 2008 at 12:27 pm 60This director is intellectually dishonest when he says that “society” wants us to believe that child rape and molestation is a “soul destroying event”. That’s what you call a classic false dilemma. No one I have ever known or heard or read has claimed that molestation destroys someone’s soul. Based on Dirty Harry’s movie review, Ball seems to simplistically take the opposite extreme, showing a teflon-girl upon whom sexual abuse has no effect whatsoever.
The truth is, decent people abhor sexual abuse of children because it damages them emotionally and makes it more difficult to live a happy life later on, not because it necessarily “destroys” their souls.
This $#%^ should be ashamed of himself for creating such a movie, and I should be ashamed of myself for spending money to view his earlier movie and watch his earlier TV show.
Phoenixon 26 Jul 2008 at 7:57 pm 61I don’t buy the excuses. Hollywood needs a pedophilia registry now.
Polansky, rappers, Pretty Baby, Kids, Hound Dog, this, others.
MovieBob-
Propaganda is designer encouragement, and vivid fantasy is technicolor to the hesitant: borderline cases, immatures, impulsives, parolees, the drug-castrated, etc. Gay parades with public anal sex used to be an utterly taboo impulse and now mayors join in, buy that. Librulwoods and Dems now partly defend members caught in this Little Wide Stance.
The morally twisted often work to undermine the very notion of unacceptableness to lower all bars. Your minimizing of his quote, inflation of opponents, justifications by inventing absolutisms about the perverted spectrum and hair splitting on “cause”, are evil liberal-mentality farce. His signature was all over the big screen, depicting this as ubiquitous and inconsequential, surrounded by ugly charactures of Normals.
“ridiculous.”
So let’s all spam Shorts that finger you as a molester, with address.
Or can only Fundies be tipped over an edge to extreme acts.
Moral denial eventually embraces evil.
Jake Was Hereon 27 Jul 2008 at 1:41 am 62Bob:
I entirely agree that this film is not likely to INSPIRE any pedophiles who see it; at most they’ll use it as an ex post facto excuse. But does Hollywood deserve to be let off the hook for giving these sick f__ks a bigger catalogue of excuses to choose from? Myself I don’t think so. The more films like this that are made, the more “intellectual” cover these freaks will think they have for their perversions. Already some of them, looking at our Bratz-doll culture, may have begun to think that their desires are not so abnormal after all… which is quite clearly NOT true– I don’t think even you would willingly defend them.
Towelhead Movieon 10 Sep 2008 at 3:30 pm 63Towelhead director Alan Ball has come under fire for a controversial scene but he insists he was right to show it. Read more and view the trailer to Towelhead.
Dirty Harry’s Place… » Peter Suderman Reviews ‘Towelhead’on 19 Sep 2008 at 4:54 pm 64[…] Over at the terrific Culture 11 web magazine, arts and entertainment editor Peter Suderman had a chance to check out Alan Ball’s Towelhead and hits it even harder than I did. […]
Dirty Harry’s Place… » Pajamas: ‘Towelhead and the Normalization of Sex With Children’on 27 Sep 2008 at 8:17 am 65[…] My review of Towelhead is here. […]
Harry R. Wilkenson 27 Sep 2008 at 11:08 am 66Pedophilia is right, if made by the right people:
Amongst hardcore Muslims, nothing wrong to tamper with a 9-year-old girl, provided this leads to a marriage or is made after marriage…
Girls can be even younger, like shows us the famous case of Stefan Schmidt, in his early forties, former director of a former home for “parentless children” called Spatzennest in Ramsen, about 30 miles north-east of the famous US-Airbase Ramstein. If you understand German and google under “Wormser Prozesse” you will find a continuously updated Wikipedia site explaining all of it. Stefan Schmidt loves to wash and cream the pussies of pre-pubic girls and to shove them enemas into their sweet little azzole… A couple of weeks ago the tribunal of Kaiserslautern (called K-Town amongst the GIs) forbade him to treat little girls, only girls of at least 14 years. But this means less fun for poor Stefan!!!
Harry R. Wilkenson 27 Sep 2008 at 11:11 am 67Hi, did my comment about the legality of child-abuse in the Old Word reach you?
Otherwise consult my website http://www.artforumasia.com
Geneva’s Dirty Harry
Harry R. Wilkenson 27 Sep 2008 at 12:03 pm 68Here is the link to the trailer of an anti-pedophile movie:
http://www.peewee-horris.de/html/home.php?content=stuehle
Sorry that I can’t explain you why in the Old World pedophilia is tolerated in many countries, also Muslim ones. But my messages just don’t come thru. Why?
edward_mon 28 Sep 2008 at 7:39 pm 69“I was not speaking of, nor responding to, a question of whether or not the film had a negative message and/or sent the wrong message. Someone posted, in no uncertain terms, their belief that the existance of this movie was going to DIRECTLY lead to children being abused in real life. I offered my opinion that this person was being, well… ridiculous.”
To quote someone older and wiser than both of us, Bob: are you a charter member of the Hair-splitters Association?
You disagree and chide someone because they hold the opinion that this movie will inspire someone (even if only one someone) to take the plunge and molest a child, yet you yourself offer only that its your ‘opinion’ that this belief is ridiculous. You give no more proof than they did, but of course, YOU know better.
Bob, if a movie is trying to send a ‘message’, as you mentioned (and ignored) in the opening part of the above, then they are trying to sell you on their belief, and change your way of thinking to theirs. As someone else posted, its what Madison Ave survives on.
In that case, I hardly think that child rape in any form is a character builder, no matter how the film-maker twists it.
Ok, you want an example of a movie influencing people negatively. Easy. How about ‘Heat’, and the LA Shootout. The men who planed and executed the bank robbery used the film as a ‘how to’ and ‘how not to’ blueprint. This is not urban myth, nor hearsay. Investigations after the fact found the movie, and notes made regarding what would work and not work in a real robbery, at the residences of the perpetrators (although Hollywood would have you believe it was only a coincidence. Ya, right. And if you buy that, see me about a bridge I can sell you cheap).
Hollywood loves to say that the movies they make ‘influence and inspire’ we poor, huddled masses, yet at the same time, deny any responsibility when bad things happen due to this inspiration.
‘Towelhead’ is a sick piece of crap (sorry Harry, I can’t think of a better word), little more than a porn movie for pedophiles. No, this movie won’t MAKE someone molest, rape, and degrade a 13 year old girl. All it does is desensitize us to those actions, making it a little easier to accept, a little easier to buy the excuse of a twisted mind that does find it acceptable, even preferable.
Makes me wonder when the guys who prefer sheep for sexual thrills get their movie. It’d give a whole new meaning to ‘Silence of the Lambs’, wouldn’t it?
Looking Closer » Blog Archive » Towelhead - A guest review by Lisa Ann Cockrel (Updated: more views)on 12 Nov 2008 at 1:00 pm 70[…] there’s¬†Dirty Harry: All of this adds up to what was the ugliest film experience of my life. Everyone around me […]
Dirty Harry’s Place… » DHP Review: Doubton 25 May 2009 at 4:16 pm 71[…] here, here, and here, through the portrayal of the sympathetic child molester, the onscreen […]