Lauren Book’s “Dog” Movie Review
In an interesting guest column in Orlando-Rising.com, State Senator Lauren Book tells parents they should avoid taking their children to see the kid’s movie “Show Dogs” because of a scene which she calls ‘disturbing’. She calls for the removal of the scene before it’s release or a boycott of the film..
The objectionable scene is one “where the hero prepares to compete in a dog show by learning how to prance, show, and even stay completely still while his private parts are being inspected and touched” She equates the practice to “grooming”.
Now I see Senator Book’s point clearly. Perhaps, someone who has been sexually abused may see the scene from a different perspective than someone who has not been. To a victim, it may evoke terrifying memories. To a non-victim, dog show dogs having their genitals inspected is something we don’t think about. Maybe therapy did enable me to be empathetic and to her point, I do give credence to Book’s criticism of the movie.
But the review reveals something else about Book that I wish she would consider herself before making any political moves. Towards the end, she writes, “I myself have not seen Show Dogs, but have read multiple reviews that clearly state this content in the movie.” Wait a minute… what? You’re calling for a boycott of the movie, but you’ve not even seen it? You’re a state leader acting on anecdotal evidence without even checking it out for yourself?
That’s the kind of thing that drives us nuts about Lauren Book. She will recite her dad’s rhetoric as if it were gospel, without investigating the facts. How many times have we heard her say, “it’s not a matter of if, but when they will re-offend” as if a broken record of her father, without regard to actual recidivism statistics?
Now I’ve not seen this movie either, so I can’t say whether Lauren Book is right on or off-base. I’m going to reserve judgment until I know the facts for myself – which is what she should be doing. Not only when it comes to “Show Dogs” but when it comes to passing laws too!
An interesting post-script to the above article is that Lauren’s review of “Show Dogs” comes at the same time as her father, Ron, is getting himself into some hot water with dogs. First his representation of commercial puppy mills in conflict with Miami-Dade almost cost him his lobbying gig with the County, and second, he wound up suing a retail store, “Puppy Palace” for fees. Check out his affidavit of costs at the link below! Come on, Ron!!! $1680 for Process Server fees on two defendants? Does your process server rent Ferrari’s to serve defendants? Not sure whether “Show Dogs” or anything Ron Book testifies to are bigger works of fiction!
Discover more from Florida Action Committee (FAC)
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
In treatment are taught not to play the victim or minimize. Yet there have been studies where people having sex under 18 were not destroyed to the point of the ruins laws put upon many RSOs. There are some sick violent people sure but most of these can be easily singled out. Many of our ancestors just a few generation ago married well before 18. Theses laws target men, suppress the vote and set the foundations for the Police state. Using the. Evolution process of just a few years
I find this entire article ridiculous. This is a movie about …… dogs,
right? Probably best to have just left it alone. The writer does exactly what she accuses Book of doing so that now we have two writers speaking about a movie they haven’t even seen. And the comment, “Registrants should avoid Children’s Movies.” Excuse me? That sure is lumping us all into one pile isn’t it? Do I really have to remind this group that not all of us are here because of that particular struggle? Though I am a fellow Registrant I happen to be one of those who in a fair and honest world shouldn’t have to be here at all. I have, however, really tried over the years to remain sensitive towards those who are indeed dealing with more serious crimes than others, but I don’t like being lopped into one group by society and certainly not by FAC. Maybe, i just woke up sensitive today, but i felt this needed to be said. We are a very varied group and I think that is something that FAC forgets sometimes.
I understand and respect your position.
rpsabq – I also was a little surprised about the avoid children’s movie statement. I would assume they meant to go alone? Not sure, but there is no prohibition against it.
OK – after further feedback, I’ll remove.
I guess just when there are already so many things that control RSOs lives you feel like you should fight for every little thing you can hang on to! 🙂
Sometimes those who are making the most noise have something to hide!
Ron Book has been Barking for years
I think Ron Book needs to be “fixed.”
I believe it was Shakespeare who said “I think the lady TOO much.”
So here is the movie description:
“After a failed attempt to recover a stolen baby panda, police dog Max reluctantly teams up with a human FBI agent named Frank. A hot tip leads Max and Frank to Las Vegas for the world’s most exclusive dog show. To find the panda, Max goes under cover as a contestant to get the lowdown from his fellow canines. With help from their new friends, the crime-fighting duo must now foil another kidnapping plot and rescue other valuable animals from a gang of greedy smugglers.”
What about the baby panda abduction and animal smuggling? Kidnapping and Human Trafficking are hot topic issues. Does this film desensitize children to those crimes?
And the dog show! How about that one? Does it teach our children that individuals should be objectified and judged based on sexualised ideals? Is appearance all that matters?
This, by no means whatsoever, serves to trivialize any suggestion that the film fosters a culture of sexual victimization. That has no place in a children’s movie at all. But for the same token, you will find people equally passionate about their issues (ie: kidnapping, human trafficking, beauty pageants and even animal rights) which might not graze Book’s (or others’) radars.
The point of the original post was not to support the idea that these themes should be kept in children’s movies. They absolutely should not. The point was; before someone calls out another or tries to orchestrate a boycott, they have an obligation to investigate the facts first and only then open their mouths. Especially when that person is a politician.
FAC,
If they are going to do this, they need to look at Spongebob Squarepants. Now listen and follow along.
Spongebob is a contraceptive sponge !!
He has a crab(s) as a friend(s)
He lives in a place called “Bikini Bottom”
and a couple of other things. (The mayor is a sexual reference)
We can take anything and make it sexual.
Did they even SHOW the dog “being fondled”???
Or did they just show the face of the dog going “OMG!!”
Lauren needs to get help. We need to inform Tallahassee that L. Book is in some serious need of mental health counseling as she is losing her touch with reality.
A vote of “NO confidence” from me
Interesting – my daughter just (2 days ago) sent me the original article that all this dog movie fervor is based on. I would be willing to bet that the “several” reviews are based on this one sole review. In that article there were many comments, some of which were calling for a boycott etc. etc. (all without seeing the movie just like Book). Immediately it brought to mind when the live action Beauty and the Beast movie was released. It was a highly anticipated movie and then just one church group reviewed the movie as having a gay scene and the movie flopped (by Disney standards). The scene in question was not even close to being a gay scene anyway. So, I wonder about that actuality of this scene. Is it being blown out of proportion? Is it something that will upset victims/survivors (very different in my opinion) and not affect others? If the scene is as told then it could be changed or altered probably without changing the context of the movie but should it have to be changed? The one thing I am 100% positive that it is not is a wide spread conspiracy to groom children (perpetuated by Hollywood) – that assertion (I have seen some commenters claim) is absolutely preposterous! In fact, almost laughable except for the more serious implication that people actually think this way! It looks like a moot point now because the movie was pulled and changed. https://foreverymom.com/arts-entertainment/show-dogs-movie-pulled-from-theaters/
All of these foolish ideas about things done at a dog show makes you wonder why Lauren books really thinking this way?