Big Sister: A Brittany Murphy Story

Well... LAPD is investigating the tragic death of popular actress Brittany Murphy, who passed away at only 32 years of age.  It doesn't seem to be a matter of foul play.  At least, directly.  The usual Hollywood pundits- like the vultures they largely are- are already spreading stories about drugs and the standard what-have-you.  True to their nature, they will dredge up (or create) any sordid rumor to facilitate their own standings.  That's why the early speculations one sees from such events are inherently worthless.  As would any experienced culture watcher, I've learned to never take anything from Hollywood at face value.  Not until multiple and trusted sources can be analyzed and confirmed... and reviewed after a certain period of time.  That time is necessary to make a sober assessment.

As to Brittany Murphy herself... 

She wasn't what one would consider an A-list actress, it's true.  But she was one who had long been in regular demand with supporting roles in some notable films, to which she did credit.  She had also played the leading lady in a number of smaller efforts.  Those, along with a list of TV appearances and voiceovers, resulted in a respectable career resume.  She was also kind and generous by nature, to all accounts; a facet that has been quickly acknowledged by those who knew her.   

Yet, big stardom eluded her.  She was, in fact, one of those reliable types that used to be known as "character actors"; one of those familiar faces who show up again and again... but whose name is often "just on the tips of our tongue".  In her case, the "character" was most often that of the stereotypic ditzy and oversexed young blonde in a comedy role.  Her performance in "Clueless" established her in that typecast.  Generally, Brittany followed it unpretentiously.  While she undoubtedly harbored higher ambitions, one gathers the impression that she was, at heart, a free-spirited womanchild who mainly just enjoyed making motion pictures for their own sake.  Nothing wrong with that.

There is a particular story about her, though, that I came to learn several years ago.  It's one that the news sources haven't yet mentioned... and may never.  For that reason alone, needs to be shared.  It's one that illustrates how, even in the tawdry precincts of Hollywood, acts of kindness, generosity and humility can emerge.  It also points to the old adage that, in such places, no good deed goes unpunished.

As it happened, Brittany Murphy had been cast as the lead in a modest comedy/drama called "Uptown Girls".  (MGM: 2004)  Again, her "ditzy" character was to be emphasized in the part of a spoiled heiress who loses her money and is forced to learn how to earn a living.  While a basically familiar plot, the twist was in how a childlike woman could learn responsibility and maturity from a precocious rich child for whom she had been hired as governess.  Think "A New Leaf" meets "Mary Poppins"!  For all that, it was an important part for Brittany insomuch as it represented a "vehicle role".  Her character was to be central and she would be carrying the film alone... a key development that no rising star can take lightly.  Her only rival would be whatever child actress the producers eventually hired.

That's where Dakota Fanning came in.  Her being acquired at the last minute changed everything.  Dakota, for the past three years, was not only a formidable presence on-screen, but was the top child star in the country- bar none.  She was also the most popular and beloved child in movies since Hayley Mills.  AND she was A-listed... a nine year old girl- enjoying the patronage of Steven Spielberg himself- who could command a seven figure salary in a major production.  With her addition, Brittany's role suddenly went from sole lead to, at best, a shared lead ...with her as the junior partner!

A lesser actress would have raged, set out to sabotage her little rival or simply stalked off the set in a "high dudgeon".  In the egocentric and competitive world of Filmdom, such events have been far from uncommon... even to involve jealousy of children.  The antics of comedy genius W.C. Fields in this regard are still the stuff of legends!

But Brittany Murphy was not of that sort.  She swallowed her pride and understandable disappointment in a way that few other of her collegues would have.  She not only befriended her tiny costar but, in the process of their collaboration, became a virtual big sister to her.  Apparently, Brittany's undermature "Molly" character (somewhat reflected in her true self) helped bridge the age gap between her and Dakota, who's own "Ray" persona reflected the freakishly precocious image that her handlers had imposed on her for the sake of marketability.  Forcing a little girl to live up to such an image- along with handling the too-adult concepts of this and previous roles- would be naturally trying on any child.

[In fact, that companionship- and the "Uptown Girls" film itself- later came to be characterized by the whimsical anecdote "The Murph and the Smurf"!] 

It seems evident that Brittany's fellowship and- later- affection was a needed element in Dakota's life.  While the movie itself was only a modest success, their bond remained firm beyond the shooting and the publicity campaign.  When, three years later, Dakota's career all but collapsed in infamy from the "Hounddog" debacle- and when collegues, filmmakers, reviewers and her fanbase had turned from her in sorrow or disgust- Brittany stood by her.  She had nothing to gain personally from doing this.  Nor did she ever attempt to cash in on their relationship during Dakota's glory days.  In that, her personal character (and loving heart) placed her above Dakota's own agent and parents!

Brittany was one of the few true friends that horrendously exploited child ever had.  And who knows?  She may have saved Dakota's sanity by being there for her.  She may have even saved her life.  That may sound excessive to say, but I have reasons to think so.  Dakota's emotional instability after her fall from grace was evident in a number of incidents that her publicists couldn't quite hush up.  The true extent of it may never be known.  But it was likely severe... and may remain so today.  She could use Brittany's good humor right now.

Dakota Fanning is going to have a sad Christmas this year.  Despite her brightening career prospects after a long dry spell, she's going to have to deal with the the memories of yet another semi-pornographic role (the unreleased "The Runaways") and the prospects of how it will be received.  Her arranged partnership with Kristen Stewart (who, if anything, is the anti-Brittany) is already showing its downside in this and other ways.  She may yet see her own sister's growing career eclipse her's.  And her parents and agents are no less exploitive of her than before.  Everyone- kids in particular- need someone they can turn to and trust with their confidences.  These are hard to come by in Hollywood!  In Dakota's short life, they've been rare indeed. 

Brittany Murphy will be loved and remembered by many friends, fans and relatives.  This Christmas season will see any number of kind (and, unfortunately, not so kind) testaments to her.  The tragic death of any young celebrity will garner those.  But it's safe to say that, in a rambling house just off Ventura Parkway, a tiny and troubled 15 year old will be feeling her loss as badly as any.  Perhaps worst of all.  God keep them both.

Thanksgiving

Dear Readers and Friends:

First off; I wish to apologize for my inactivity during this month.  A combination of work requirements, personal concerns, financial woes (!), election activities and other events have kept me from the researches and articles I've been wanting to write for some time now.  My political and civic activities, in particular, have been weighing on me as a result of the recent elections and the critical issues, both local and national, in which I'm involved.

But the issues of the culture and the protection of children is never far from my mind.  It is as key and vital as ever.  In all facets of our lives (politics included!) children are being exploited as never before.  When we sit around the family feast tomorrow, let's take time to note the young faces among us.  Let's contemplate their future as we recall our past Thanksgivings as children.  What kind of future did our parents contemplate for us?  What did we foresee for ourselves?  And how has it turned out?

If we were as most children, Thanksgiving was seen as but the prelude to that glorious time known as Christmas.  But then again, we were children.  We are no longer.  Now, with an adult's hindsight- and prevision- we look ahead to an uncertain future.  For us and for those laughing little faces among us.  For them, in particular... for they are what matters. 

It's not enough to be thankful to God on Thanksgiving.  It's also a time of recommitment.  To Him, His Word, His blessing to us for the (as yet) free country of which He is the supreme, acknowledged Founder and for the great blessing of the children of our families.  May we remember this- and them- when we invoke His Name prior to our feasts.  May our children know many more Thanksgivings.  May they celebrate these Holy Days in peace, freedom and prosperity under the protection of those who love them... and be able to extend the same to the young ones who will come after them.  For that is the essence of God's plan- from generation to generation.

Let us keep this day Holy.  Let its spirit warm the hearts of God's people.  And may it extend itself to those who have fallen into moral iniquity; that they may contemplate anew and that they may look upon their own children and ask themselves, "Have I done right by them- as children- and beyond any worldly ambition?".  May we be filled with resolve to provide our innocents with a better country, one in which they can aspire to noble futures and be free from the manipulations and depredations of those who would take away that precious innocence for their own ends.  AND... may we remember that every adult is, in the final sense, a parent to every child who is known to him.  That sacred responsibility must be held as such... and embraced.  God's love for children must likewise be our own.

To my friends, relatives, readers and associates, to their children, to the children I have known and to those in who's behalf I have worked for- for all of you- a happy and blessed Thanksgiving and Holy Season to come.  God bless.

Steven Mark Pilling      

Killer Parents

Ever since the Susan Smith child murder case in South Carolina, nothing can be taken off the table from the onset of such an investigation.  Not from the law enforcement point of view.  Ask any big city cop in particular.  Killer parents DO exist... and as never before in their frequency.

Certainly, there have always been criminal parents who have neglected and exploited their children to sometimes lethal degrees.  Often, these parents were abused or neglected children themselves and, thus, had their own parental instincts muted by the experience... although this is hardly an excuse.  But never in modern times have we seen so many horrendous and seemingly conscienceless crimes by parents against their own children.  The motives tend to fall into three categories, based on those parents' outlook. 

1.  Children as sex objects or otherwise to be employed as sources of perverse satisfaction.

2.  Children who ultimately fail in their conceived purpose as emotional and/or financial crutches.

3.  Children who come to be regarded as subhuman figures who can be discarded when inconvenient.

The promulgation of these attitudes, I maintain, can be traced largely to the dehumanization of our culture.  This influence is now so widespread and readily available to children themselves that it, in effect, puts its stamp on the immature psyche and becomes solidified upon maturity.  From the baby boom generation onward, this effect has grown to ever greater degrees.  And with it, so have the instances of crimes against and by children.

If that potential is there in the parent's mind, it can take as little as a media reported child crime to set them off.  This last instance (that of little Somer Thompson) happened in Florida.  It likewise followed closely on the heels of another such tragedy and the trial of an infanticidal mother in another; both having gained national attention.  Copy Cat Crimes against children?  And by their own mothers?  Once such things were inconceivable.  Not anymore.

Certainly not to investigators, either.  These are warning signs for both police and citizens alike; whether post or PRE crime:

1.  A household with a single mother or estranged parents.

2.  Known or suspected alcohol/drug abuse by family members. 

3.  Familial police record.  (Even a string of petty crimes can be indicative of worse, underlying problems.)

4.  Previous signs in the child of abuse or neglect; physical OR mental.

5.  The family's status among their neighbors.

6.  The physical state of the home itself.  (Many tip-offs here- sometimes subtle.)

7.  Parental behavior after a child goes missing.  (Such as a wildly emotional appeals to the media, casting blame on an anonymous and stereotypical suspect type that only they claimed to have seen, a noticably "carefree" lifestyle afterward, etc.)

8.  Associates of known or suspected criminality.

9.  And, as always, a stash of pornographic material.

When a sense of personal entitlement pervails, it can grow to negate not only the higher instincts, but the fundamental ones as well.  Abuse, exploitation and even the murder of one's own children CAN be the result.  It doesn't just happen in Hollywood.

It should also be noted that the Thompson neighborhood contained an unusually high number of registered sex offenders.  They, in this case, were rapidly removed from the list of suspects during the natural first phase of the investigation.  So... who does that leave in the process of elimination?  Naturally (as in the Jaycee Dugard case) the possibility of a pervert from outside picking a "target of opportunity" is always there.  But, as is most often in all crimes against women and children, the perpetrator will be someone the victim knows.  With children; most often a family member or another close authority figure. 

Police are well aware of these facts.  Good citizens should be, also.  We're not just our brother's keeper.  We, as adults, are secondary parents to every child with whom we come in contact.  A misguided sense of "minding one's own business" should not deter us from at least expressing our concerns when we suspect that a child is being abused, neglected or exploited by parents or guardians.  Because- if it is true- that child may be in mortal peril; either in the course of that abuse or as a prelude to premeditated tragedy.        

A Warning To Parents

Dear Readers:

The night before last, a long expected event occurred.  The motion picture "Hounddog" appeared on television for the first time.  It is being run on the Showtime premium cable channel.  For how long it will appear and on what other networks it may yet gravitate is, as yet, unknown to me.  When I can discover more, I'll post an addendem to this article.  For the meantime, I'd seriously suggest that parents utilize precautions for their children if they have the means to access that channel.  Fortunately, Showtime had (at least!) the minor decency to show this film only during the nighttime.

A number of people who have seen the film via DVD have, as expected, written me to say that the movie "wasn't THAT bad".  In comparison to the standard R-rated fare from Hollywood, one might say this.  But this is superficial.  It is also what the filmmakers hope the reaction will be.  That's because what you see is only a small part of the story and the overall issue.  This is in keeping with the reasons for my long standing advocacy against the "Hounddog" film. 

Allow me to elaborate.

There are three prime considerations one must take into mind when evaluating a motion picture... especially where children are concerned:  Content, concept and condition... C3.

Content:  This is what filmmakers want you to consider as the sole factor.  It must be remembered that the final content of a film is the result of an often laborious editing procedure.  In some films, this process can be elaborate and extensive indeed.  Some are so through the necessity to "scale down" a major effort to a watchable length for audiences.  With others, it is the result of a very negative reaction to the "first cut".  This was the case with "Hounddog"... over a three year period and through three (likely four!) major edits.  When you see this in a minor independent film, that alone should send up warning flags.

The other two factors are those that CAN'T be edited.

Concept:  What is this movie trying to say?  Not only in specific words and images, but in the overall message?  Filmmakers can prevaricate or lie outright about this and, in cases of a particularly offensive and/or inept work, often do.  But the basic message of the plot is always there.  In "Hounddog's" case, the story was about child sex and adult degeneracy.  That and nothing more.  It was also aimed at a child audience, as it utilized- as its central character- the premier child actress in Hollywood at the time.  Filmmakers (especially those who have no qualms about exploiting child actors) are fully aware that children- more than adults- are drawn to familiar names in a cast first and foremost.  They are less liable to see beyond the name of a child who made some acclaimed family films previously.  Again; this was intended.  Also- and repulsively- the filmmakers were aware that this would attract a certain "adult audience" whose outlook toward children is hardly wholesome. 

Note:  The child star I refer to here is Dakota Fanning.  Dakota quite possibly had the most dramatic rise to fame and enjoyed the longest reign as an A-listed child actress of any other since Shirley Temple.  For six years, she was the undisputed and most acclaimed child star in Hollywood, with a number of truly laudable films.  Unfortunately, she had a few that weren't family fare as well.  But they were largely forgiven due to her other qualities.  But such fame also attracts other kinds of "admirers".  As I once noted to a poster, "Do you think that there's a pervert in the country who hasn't, at one time or another, dreamed of having Dakota in his power?".  With the advent of "Hounddog", the first American film to incorporate actual child pornography in its makeup, the dreams of every predator were answered. 

This brings us to the third factor.

Condition:  During the January 2007 Sundance Film Festival (where "Hounddog" was first run for audiences), that film was the source of considerable public debate.  Sean Hannity, during the two weeks of coverage on his "Hannity & Combes" TV talk show, touched on the main issue of condition when he mentioned, "A lot ended up on the cutting room floor".  Note that "Hounddog" had already, since July 2006, been edited twice.  This was the result of its early "outing" by set technicians (before it even wrapped!) and the shocked reaction of reviewers to a sneak preview just prior to Sundance's opening.  Actually, the condition factor goes beyond even the editing.  It mainly involves what was done with three child actors in the process of the film's making, both on and off camera.

Now we come to the heart of why this movie is the most despicable (and dangerous) film that Hollywood has ever produced.  Child actors, no matter how experienced or jaded by previous unwholesome works, are still children.  To turn them into vessels of sex and violence, they must be conditioned into an acceptance of personal actions that are alien to a child's nature and contrary to any decent upbringing.  True, in the case of mild "fantasy violence", a child can often be effectively shielded from trauma.  But not always even then.  In the case of gross violence and sexual themes (much less actual interaction with adults and other children) this is impossible.  It will effect their hearts and souls.  And, through their travails (and the non-imaged concepts) it will reach out to their peer-aged audiences.

"How can you do your job and day your lines if you don't know what's going on?"- Lukas Haas ("Witness"- age 9)

I could go into this in much greater detail.  However, I'll refer the reader to my many other discourses on the "Hounddog" subject for this... essays that not only include my personal evaluations, but those of many others far more involved in this issue and over a greater span of time.  Some, you may note, are former child actors themselves or otherwise long involved in the film industry.

"Hounddog" was the first (as far as I know!) American film to be conceived and executed in child pornography.  This must be understood clearly.  It also represents a moral and physical threat to every child in this country.  It first kicked open a door to an entirely new level of child exploitation, one which has since spawned a host of other child exploitive films.  None, as yet, to its level of obscenity... but close.  The fact that this movie, despite its violation of a number of child protective laws, escaped prosecution and can be accessed now is the prime reason. 

Children are vulnerable.  All children; actors and audience alike, morally and physically.  This point cannot be overemphasized.  Please exercise ever greater caution with your children during the time this movie is being featured on television.  And, while you're at it, offer some prayers for the child actors of the Industry- in all their thousands- who must so directly deal with "Hounddog's" aftermath.  They're kids, too.  And as public figures, they are, in a very real sense, our own kids as well.  God help them all.

Steven Mark Pilling 

Addendum:  Apparently- and in an unusual occurrance- the movie was only shown that one time for this week.  I assume from this that the film was shown conditionally to gauge its reception. owing to its extremely controversial content and history.  I encourage all readers to send a note of protest to Showtime for airing this work of depravity.      

Depravity's Progress

Dear Readers:  About six weeks ago, I was reviewing an online article by the well known columnist and child advocate Rebecca Hagelin.  It was entitled "Disney's Decline?" and offered her opinions about a series of occurrances that held the Disney Corporation's somewhat tarnished family friendly reputation in an even more questionable light.  One of the responses was a very lengthy one by an unabashed liberal (named Sol Invectus!) who was of the opinion that the traditional outlook toward children should be scrapped in any case.  I'd seen those kind of arguments before, having had previously debated the homosexual agenda.  I'm also aware of the mentality behind those who think that the sexual usage of children- to any degree and in any venue- is justified.  Therefore, I composed a response which became a running debate.  This is the gist of it.

Dear Sol:

It's obvious from your series of rants that you represent the Hollywood-minded-anything-is-moral-if-it-feels-good-do-it element of society.  Nowhere did I say that 1965 was the "Camelot" of decency in America.  (Camelot, by the way, was a liberal fiction woven around a licentious President.)  In fact, ever since the Warren Court's 1963 decision legalizing pornography- coupled with the rise of Kinsey related groups and the institution of the MPAA movie ratings system- the moral standards of the country were beginning a downward spiral.  And, as always, the liberal circles were quick to embrace it for political value.  They still do, as you epitomize.

It's one thing to talk about immoral public figures... who are hardly a new phenomenon in human history!  It's another to legalize and legitimize destructive conduct.  And it's yet another to publicize that behavior in the media and in entertainment as less than despicable.  That has consequences; not only in public affairs, but- in particular- in the example it sets for growing children.

In that latter category comes the greatest tragedy of all.  Since the "Taxi Driver" event in 1976- and, especially, since the outright pornification of preteen kids by Dakota Fanning in 2006- the premise of children as "little adults" and "sexual beings" has become openly promoted by Hollywood.  And where Hollywood- the face of liberal depravity- leads, the popular culture follows.  And that culture- more prevalent and intrusive than at any time in history- attacks the hearts and minds of growing children... and leads them to misery and ruin.

But this, in your world, is "liberation".  There's another word for it, though.  It's "decadency"- the fatal disease that collapses civilizations.  Civilization itself is built around the prime endeavor of all moral adults; the protection, nurturement and moral guidance of children.  When we fail (or reject!) this concept- the mandate of God's Word- we fail in all.  We fail our children when we desecrate them in public and when we turn them into objects of scorn, exploitation and sexualization.  When we devalue them to the status of sometimes useful animals- and in their own minds as well- we commit the ultimate blasphemy.

Nor am I surprised that you turn this debate into a promotion for sexual deviancy as well.  Sexualizing children so as to make them "available" is a long standing homosexual dream.  Perversion, despite what you say, is not a natural state.   Nor is it a "right".  It is a soul destroying mental obsession.

Children who are exposed to it are far more likely to be drawn into it.  Children upon whom sex is inflicted are victimized by it for their entire lives.  Children who see other children in depictions of gross violence and sexual abuse are influenced into accepting it as the norm.  So, in fact, are "some" adults.  Thus, in total, the dramatic rise (since the mid-1960's) in sexual and violent crimes perpetrated against children and BY children.

We will not allow our children to be your prey, Sol.  Neither in body or in mind.  Pass that along to your "associates".

And if one of them should be a fellow New Yorker named Deborah Kampmeier, please convey my renewed greetings to her... and assure her that I will continue to pursue her for her cinematic crimes against children for as long as I am able.  She is the one who conceived and executed the most landmark work of child porn in American history.  Only a true deviant could manage that.  Therefore, if you are not friends, you should be.  Look her up next time you're in Clinton NY.

Steven Mark Pilling

P.S.  Today marked the first television showing of the final edited version of "Hounddog", Kampmeier's obscene masterpiece.  No matter how much has been extracted from the film over three year's time, it remains the most vile of American movies.  Keep your children away from Showtime in the late hours.  Yourselves, too.