One of my favourite time wasting, guilty pleasures is regularly checking in on the Jezebel.com website, which carries a mix of current affairs, celebrity news and comment, usually with a feminist bent. I have long been horrified by their constant reporting on the prevalence of rape and sexual assault within the confines of US tertiary institutions, which also happens to be the subject of this week’s documentary for discussion, THE HUNTING GROUND.
One of my favourite time wasting, guilty pleasures is regularly checking in on the Jezebel.com website, which carries a mix of current affairs, celebrity news and comment, usually with a feminist bent. I have long been horrified by their constant reporting on the prevalence of rape and sexual assault within the confines of US tertiary institutions, which also happens to be the subject of this week’s documentary for discussion, THE HUNTING GROUND.
Even for those of you who may be more immune to the horror of sex crime than others, the statistics are staggering. One in five women in college in the United States are sexually assaulted, yet only a fraction of these crimes are reported, and even fewer result in punishment for the perpetrators. THE HUNTING GROUND - from the same intrepid team behind devastating documentary THE INVISIBLE WAR – offers up a piercing, monumental exposé of rape culture on campuses, that was always destined to light a fire under a national (and international) debate.
As a documentary it has had its fair share of detractors (more on that later), but I love a description I read of it online as a “tour de force of verité footage, expert insights, and first-person testimonies”, as it follows undergraduate rape survivors pursuing both their education and justice, despite ongoing harassment and the devastating toll their experience and subsequent disclosure has had on them and their families.
Turning the spotlight on elite Ivy League names, state universities, and small colleges, THE HUNTING GROUND filmmakers Kirby Dick and Amy Ziering reveal a shocking system of institutional cover-ups, rationalisations, victim-blaming, bullying and denial. The sheer length that some institutions will go to protecting their reputation is horrendous, and makes for a frustrating watching. Meanwhile, the film also represents the other side of the subject by focusing on Andrea Pino and Annie Clark, survivors who are taking matters into their own hands.Clark's activism stems in part from a personal experience during her freshman year at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. In 2007, she was approached by a friend who confided in her about a sexual assault. Clark herself had been recently assaulted and the two women agreed to report their rapes to the school administration. According to Clark, when she sought support for the incident, a UNC school staff member advised her that rape was like a football game, and that the next day was like being a Monday-morning quarterback where you look back and think, ‘what would I have done differently?’" In response, a horrified Clark began research into Title IX, a 1972 Civil Rights Act amendment that grants certain rights to those pursuing higher education. Since joining forces with fellow sexual assault survivor Pino, the pair is employing Title IX legal strategy to fight back and share their knowledge among a growing, unstoppable network of young women who will no longer be silent.
But now to address the film’s detractors. Filmmaker Kirby Dick’s most recent outing does at times appear a little unwieldy, with a non-stop presentation of facts, figures and faces.The film has also been criticised for inaccuracies and being a ”case study in search of a case”, but there is no denying that the documentary is shaping the public debate around campus rape and for that reason alone deserves praise. A closer look at one of its central cases by journalists has suggested the filmmakers put advocacy ahead of accuracy at times, but in my opinion Dick is telling the tale of the women (and men) who have little chance to share their stories themselves.