VidMate
Free YouTube video & music downloader
ACTOR
Andrea PinoAnnie ClarkClaire PotterMelinda Manning
DIRECTOR
Kirby Dick
SYNOPSICS
The Hunting Ground (2015) is a English movie. Kirby Dick has directed this movie. Andrea Pino,Annie Clark,Claire Potter,Melinda Manning are the starring of this movie. It was released in 2015. The Hunting Ground (2015) is considered one of the best Documentary movie in India and around the world.
More
The Hunting Ground (2015) Reviews
Fails to present full evidence (Winston case) which reduces the impact of examining the issue
It would be in my school's best interest if the accusations against Jameis Winston were compelling. However, a detailed review of the evidence (also completed by Ex-Florida Supreme Court Judge Harding in FSU's Code of Conduct hearing) is not convincing of any crime. It does not even approach "by a preponderance of the evidence" (51%+) in my assessment. The documentary examines a very real issue in the USA - sexual assault. However, college campuses are not any more of a "hunting ground" than the rest of America according to government provided statistics. In fairness, these statistics are difficult to pin down. In a well done documentary, pertinent details are provided and a relatively full context is represented. Perhaps by trying to appeal too much to emotion and playing loose with facts & accuracy, this "documentary" fails badly. It blatantly misinforms at least with regard to the Winston case. For those not familiar with the body of evidence, I will provide some highlights. The accuser, EK, gave two different accounts of how she ended up with Jameis at his place. 1) Drugged (but by a short Latin looking guy) and 2) Hit over the head. Both of these have been given in testimony (the second one by her friend to the police as that is what EK had told her friend). Examinations and toxicology reports indicated no drugs and no head trauma. In point of fact, EK was able to apparently ride on the back of JW's scooter for some distance, speak clearly when being examined (she was pressed to go get checked by her friends) and make repeated texts to friends (including asking for answers to a test the next day). The physical evidence (light knee marks) confirms the account of JW and his two eye witnesses - consensual oral sex. Her own friends confirm that Winston did not provide any shots (the presumed vehicle for the drugs... that did not exist), the deceitful hit-on-the-head story and her ability to go willingly into a taxi-cab. In my view, the documentary should have offered these facts rather than just playing dramatic music and focusing on her bias narrative. These facts certainly have factored into the TPD/D.A.'s decision not to pursue criminal charges, the ratification of this decision at the State law enforcement level and the school's COC hearing. The Tallahassee Police Department actually did investigate this promptly but could have done more sooner. In fairness, once they were told she had been hit on the head (and it clearly wasn't the case) then drugged (which seemed unlikely - then backed up by two separate "negative" toxicology reports) they were right to be skeptical of her. Then she did not cooperate for many months. The Xmas holiday season pulled her (and all students) away from the school for many weeks after the encounter which also logistically did nobody any favors. On a side note, the accuser's lawyer is a UF grad (frustratingly so for the alumni of UF Law) and she is not distinguishing herself in her approach/strategy to bringing charges... nor in her accuracy of statements. I fear that specific case - and with a civil trial forthcoming which will expose these inconsistencies more clearly - will ultimately hinder the overall message of the others in the film (who may or may not have legitimate sexual assault stories).
Kinsman story not what was said in court or the police report. Thus should not be part of this film.
To start, before I get to what was in the case I'd like to mention the science of lying. http://www.blifaloo.com/info/lies_eyes.php Where she keeps looking when she refers to remembering is the direction one would look if they were using their imagination. Except for when she looks to the opposite side where the light is. Every time she looks to the light she cries. Now She claimed she was drunk(Toxicology said...Lie), she said she was drugged(Toxicology said...Lie), she said in the film that she didn't know him and he was stalking her(photos of them dancing very closely said....lie), she said he was the only guy she slept with(DNA test said...Lie). She claimed she wasn't the type go home with guys she didn't know, but she did sleep with a man either before or after Winston the same night that it happened. So who has sex with a man who is not her boy friend and then goes out to a club with friends to drink, but is so far away from her friends that they don't know about an unknown man "stalking her?" Where were her friends? The bartender that she claimed to have try and help her was never found. She also later claimed that she was dancing and that a man hit her on the back of the head and dragged her to a taxi(This was after toxicology proved she was neither drugged or drunk.)On September 2, a full nine months after she identified Winston as the man who allegedly raped her, she tweeted during Florida State's game against Pitt: "Pitt is the perfect example of why I would never want to go to school in the north. #everyonesugly #FSUvsPITT"; and "Interception, f–k you Pitt." She claimed her therapist said it would help her by attending his games. Yet this don't sound like she was in visual sight of her "attacker". Yet no therapist came forward to this claim. She said her attacker was 5'8 240 with long hair the night it happened. Winston was 6'4 200 with short hair. She however did remember the color of his bed sheets and where his apartment was located according to one of her later accounts, which would have helped them not start an investigation 2 months late. Her lawyer due to having no evidence of rape declared in court that, "It had to be rape because my client would never have sex with a black man." Yet this film ignores all of this and plays it as if she is being truthful. The film crew was also caught editing Winston's wiki page to match their own claims. http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/the- hunting-ground-crew-caught-editing-wikipedia-to-make-facts-conform- to-film/article/2576792 This is a sham. This film talks about an important topic but uses falsehoods to make their points.
Infuriating
This is an activist film designed to promote a "culture of rape" that is created by activists, for activists. This movie pretends to be journalism, but it hides behind fantasy to avoid legal scrutiny. This movie is a sales attempt to sell an idea, "rape culture" most likely to further profit women's activist groups with more government funding. This movie is socially destructive by claiming rape is thought of as acceptable, and the rape culture it has created is a "witch hunt culture" where a mere fantasy of a false rape claim (i.e. UVA/Rollingstone False Rape claim) cause protest and hate against innocent men and i.e. UVA false rape, mattress girl). Movies like these have made feminists groups the most power political group in the USA. At the mere mention of rape, with evidence proving the rape claim was a lie, feminist groups were able to get the administration of UVA to reprimand an entire group of men and boys solely based on their gender. Movies like this are not only wrong, it's socially detective and socially irresponsible.
An irresponsible film about a very serious issue
This is, without a doubt, one of the most irresponsible documentaries ever made. The so-called experts who are largely referenced could be considered naive at best, and outright discredited at worst. David Lisak is perhaps the most irresponsible inclusion in this film, as his discredited theories about rapists have become commonly held beliefs which have likely endangered numerous women. The filmmakers abuse statistics in a reckless manner, padding rape statistics by including sexual assault offenses such as attempting to hold a person's hand on a date as if they were one and the same as rape. Even with these padded statistics using long term accrued numbers, quick calculator work will tell you that the filmmakers are referring to a problem with an estimated victimization rate of one per thousands of students. Why couldn't they have found statistics to support their thesis about a campus rape "epidemic"? Why use statistics that undermine their own argument? The entire pretense of the film is horrifyingly flawed... young women are twice as likely to be raped or sexually assaulted off-campus as they are on campus. Like most crimes, people too poor to attend college are at significantly higher risk. The worst sin this movie commits is choosing to focus on subjects who outright lie to the camera. How are we to take this "epidemic" seriously, if it has been well documented that one of the main subjects in the film is a well known false accuser? The film is a long series of unsubstantiated personal anecdotes, and demonstrably false generalizations. Let me make something clear. Rape is a serious issue. But this terrible advocacy piece will endanger more potential victims with false information, and will be used as ammunition by rape denialists, with its terrible excuse for research and substantial screen time treating a false accusation as real.
Ignore the clutchers - great documentary
This is an excellent documentary on a very disturbing topic. How disturbing? Well, read the other reviews. The majority of them are by Men's Rights guys waving the red herring flag of ONE case mentioned in the movie. It's the only thing they've got to try and discredit this film. Pretty sad that a bunch of grown men feel they have to crowd onto this site and post sad little rants, clutching their stones because OMG WOMINZ MITE GET RIGHTZ!!!!! Don't pay any attention to them. This is an important film that should be seen by as many people as possible, ESPECIALLY YOUNG PEOPLE. You're better than those panicked little toddlers.