hard candy: new film on pedophilia w/ a twist

by jc » Wed Jun 21, 2006 6:35 pm

this reminds me of a q havanagilla asked a while ago, re why men seem to have a problem talking about these crimes (that's from memory, so i may have it wrong). <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Hard Candy It's payback time for a paedophile in this smart girl-bites-boy slasher flick that has had some audiences wincing Mark Kermode Sunday June 18, 2006 The Observer Hard Candy (104 mins, 1<img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/glasses.gif ALT="8)"> Directed by David Slade starring Ellen Page, Patrick Wilson, Sandra Oh The last time a British film-maker attempted to invert the man-tortures-woman traditions of the slasher genre, his film was banned from video by the BBFC. Admittedly Ray Brady's Boy Meets Girl (1994) was no masterpiece, its scenes of freshly microwaved limbs more risible than radical. But the antagonism which it provoked in the chief censor suggested an antipathy to the subject matter rather than the content. Much has changed since, and today the BBFC doesn't even bat an eyelid at films like British ad-grad David Slade's Hard Candy, a tale of girl bites boy which has been rated 18 for 'strong, sadistic violence'. Yet the reaction of young male American audiences who howled at scenes of visceral emasculation suggests that those old taboos are still alive and kicking. Hard Candy begins in worrisomely leering mode, as 'Thonggrrrl' is groomed by 'Lensman' in an internet chatroom, computer keys clicking with skin-crawling salaciousness. A meeting is arranged, where middle-aged photographer Jeff ensnares 14-year-old Hayley with talk of Goldfrapp bootlegs and lures her back to his swanky LA apartment. The walls drip with advertising images of nubile adolescents, and the conversation is littered with phrases like 'keep teasing me like that, you're gonna drive me crazy'. So far, so creepy, as rising star Ellen Page's coquettish ingenue duly plays Lolita to Patrick Wilson's slimy Humbert. Hayley knows better than to 'accept a mixed drink from a strange man', but it's Jeff who becomes unexpectedly intoxicated, emerging from a drugged sleep to discover that his dreams of underage flesh have mutated into an avenging nightmare. 'Playtime's over,' Hayley taunts. 'It's time to wake up...' What follows is a sardonic (rather than sadistic) celluloid fable in which Little Red Riding Hood grabs the woodman's axe and sets about turning the big bad wolf into a sacrificial lamb. A subplot emerges about a missing girl, providing nominal context for the neutering horrors involving an ice-pack, a scalpel, and a medical textbook detailing the male scrotum. The real battlefield, however, is verbal, with Brian Nelson's razor-sharp script spewing out scabrous barbs about the commodification of teen sexuality, all spikily delivered by the admirable Page. When Jeff pleads with Hayley that turning him over to the police will ruin his career, she tartly retorts, 'Didn't Roman Polanski just win an Oscar?' Providing a running commentary on her own DIY 'preventative medicine', Hayley quips that 'they teach girl scouts to bake cookies, but this is really useful'. When Jeff insists that his photographic portfolio includes work for environmental groups, she mockingly applauds his success as 'a voyeur and a conservationist'. At times, the satirical grand guignol evokes the painful hilarity of Takashi Miike's Audition, with its quotable piano-wire pay-off 'and now... the left leg!' But the heart of Hayley's anger is far from funny, encapsulated in her bald statement that, 'Just because a girl is able to imitate a woman does not mean that she's ready to do what a woman does.' There's a tricky balance to be maintained here between horror, comedy, and socio-sexual satire, and Slade, in his feature film debut, generally proves himself up to the challenge. The visuals are seductive, with a bold painterly palette clearly defining the emotional temperature of each scene, cool blue detachment gradually giving way to blood-red flares. Crucially, Slade plays his hand close to his chest, constantly catching the audience off-guard as he flirts knowingly with generic convention. Very little is what it seems, right down to the nuts and bolts of the set-pieces. Even when things start to fall apart as the action inevitably cranks up in the film's latter movements, neither Slade nor Nelson bottle out on their commitment to Hayley and her twisted mission. On a performance level, Hard Candy is hard to fault. Page, who can currently be seen communing with mutants in X-Men: The Last Stand, is clearly a star in the making - an actress whose youthful looks disguise a real grown-up talent. The ease with which she negotiates the tonal twists of Nelson's script is commanding, and it's largely due to her empathic performance that Ellen becomes neither a cipher nor a caricature. Patrick Wilson, meanwhile, makes an equally impressive fist of playing the stricken predator, providing an eye-opening display of the thespian talent he kept so well hidden in the lousy big-screen adaptation of Lloyd Webber's The Phantom of the Opera. There's real bravery involved in committing to such a role, and Wilson deserves plaudits for taking it like a man. Hard Candy was an award-winner at the Sitges Film Festival, where future horror hits often find a home, but it deserves a wider audience than genre buffs for whom gore is the draw. It's smart, funny, and (despite that censors' warning) surprisingly visually discreet. Some scenes may leave you doubled-up, but the overall effect is, as the saying goes, better than a kick in the balls.<hr></blockquote> feels to me like kermode has a bit of trouble himself. looking forward to when it opens here. <a href="http://film.guardian.co.uk/News_Story/Critic_Review/Observer_Film_of_the_week/0,,1800169,00.html">film.guardian.co.uk/News_....html</a><a href="http://film.guardian.co.uk/News_Story/Critic_Review/Observer_Film_of_the_week/0,,1800169,00.html">review</a>another review by peter bradshaw<blockquote>Quote:<hr>By flipping over our expectations about victim status and the paedophilia debate, Hard Candy keeps you off balance<hr></blockquote><a href="http://film.guardian.co.uk/Film_Page/0,,1716525,00.html">film.guardian.co.uk/Film_....html</a><a href="http://film.guardian.co.uk/Film_Page/0,,1716525,00.html">more</a><a href="http://www.apple.com/trailers/lions_gate/hardcandy/">www.apple.com/trailers/li...andy/</a><a href="http://www.apple.com/trailers/lions_gate/hardcandy/">hard candy site w/ trailer</a>

by jc » Wed Jun 21, 2006 6:36 pm

HMW, whar's yr take on this?

by **4911** » Wed Jun 21, 2006 8:28 pm

dude - "pedophilia w/ a twist?" The hell you been watchin man?

by jc » Wed Jun 21, 2006 8:31 pm

was off the top of my head from reading the review. but i have to log in for every post and i can't edit. dunno why. wanted tochange it but couldn't. sorry.

by **4911** » Wed Jun 21, 2006 8:36 pm

naw naw, its me and the bavarian beer talking again

by **bvonahsen** » Wed Jun 21, 2006 8:56 pm

Movies like this only serve to legitimize pedophilia and represents an attempt to mainstream it. Just as clueless straight men sometimes think "It isn't gay if you're the man" so likewise some will be tempted to believe that this film doesn't promote pedophilia because the pedo gets punished and tortured. I shouldn't even have to mention how it futhers our violent lawless culture. The meme promoted is "If the crime is bad enough you have the right to be as violent as you imagine."

by **biaothanatoi** » Wed Jun 21, 2006 9:29 pm

You've lost me, BV. You seem to suggest that any public representation of paedophilia condones and encourages it, which doesn't make sense. A quarter/third of all kids are sexually assaulted before the age of 18 ... seems like staying quiet about paedophilia isn't working, wouldn't you say? Paedophilia is part of our culture, part of our society, part of who we are. Might as well talk about it. A film that's prepared to flip that around and empower the kid for once - even if it's just wish fulfillment - hell, it's worth the price of admittance to me.

by **bvonahsen** » Wed Jun 21, 2006 11:04 pm

Talk about it? Sure, no problem, "The Woodsman" is a powerfull film, I suggest you see it. But from the description this film doesn't "talk" about the subject. It's a catholic morality tale where in the first part we see a sexualized depiction of child abuse. Then viewers are absolved for watching such filth by getting off on the sadistic violence. A movie is not elevated because the victim takes sadistic revenge on his or her tormentors. All you get are two perps in place of one while those watching are debased. Doing to them as they have done unto you is not justice and most certainly not empowerment, it's barbarism. You might want to read up a bit on male sexuality. Especially where sexual arousal and violence are mixed together. Armed with the knowledge of how your sexuality works will help you to uncover how it is used by hollywood and the media to influence and manipulate you. You are more than that. They want to reduce you to a bundle of reflexes and instincts. It's good for business. If you still really want to talk about it I don't think here is the best place. Try alt.abuse.offender. I assure you the guys there have a different take on it than you think.

by **AlicetheCurious** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 4:49 am

bvonahsen, I completely agree with you. No offence to the others, but when you're caught in the propaganda matrix, it's almost impossible to see outside the box. To help pull you out, just focus on these two messages (I'm relying on the above description, since I haven't seen the film): 1) Violence is the answer against 'bad guys' (sadistic violence and torture, when done by the 'good guy' is a good thing). 2) 'Children' (victims of pedophiles) are not as innocent and helpless as their advocates would like you to believe. Conditioning and propaganda have become so subtle and sophisticated that even a conscious dissident can be brainwashed into accepting the basic values and philosophical framework of his/her oppressors. The actual plot details are not the point. The important part is the cumulative effect of being bombarded day and night, from movies, tv, music and popular novels, with messages of violence, of a gradual yet demonstrable desensitization to torture and sadism. Even more frightening is the pervasive message across all media, that people are fundamentally dangerous, all people, even good guys, even children. The only way to get away from it, is to turn off Big Brother's message and expose yourself to the writings and films of other cultures, other times. Or is it impossible for you? That in itself should give you pause.

by **NewKid** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 4:58 am

Alice, in your view, what explains elite fascination with pedophilia?

by **blanc** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 5:24 am

Haven't seen the film. some random, disorganised thoughts follow. ra groups prevent revenge by survivors. survivors are usually so badly damaged/ isolated/traumatised/impoverished that revenge is not possible, even if the strong desire to distance themselves from the methodology of the perpetrators were not their raison d'etre - and it often is. survivors friends and helpers - when they have them - are usually too conscious of the needs of the survivor and their role in supporting them, to risk putting themselves out of action by doing what would seem to come naturally. Uninvolved people think "if anyone did that to me (or mine) I'd kill them". Its not so simple, and it seems this film might make it appear so. revenge type justice is human and could work well in small enclosed relatively simple societies. but we need a justice machine wihich works for our society. the one we've got doesn't. I posted recently some of a statement made by the ACPO spokesperson on Violent crime, a statement which it seems to me gives virtual immunity to paedophiles in the UK, and is full of distortions, half truths and misrepresentations. He has followed this by an attack (on the BBC prog World Tonight) on the govt initiating discussions on the question of whether to 'out' paedophiles. The justice debate is not even ongoing. There have been too many vested interests playing the system and getting away with it. While the film is said to present a highly sexualised version of paedophilia - I doubt it presents paedophilia as it is. If there is to be discussion of paedophilia, if the public are to know - then why can we not have the documentary evidence put out. The problem with sexualised versions of paedo crime is that it leads to an association of this crime to 'normal' sexuality. It should more properly be associated with extreme and atrocious sadism, torture, violence against helpless victims. Paedophiles constantly try to present themselves as child-lovers - not as the child destroyers they are. Perhaps we should be having a debate about how to get the truth out there.

by **AlicetheCurious** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 5:25 am

NewKid, I honestly have no idea. It's like asking me to crawl inside the mind of a rat. But for me, the jury is still out on whether "the elite" is fascinated with pedophilia, or whether individual pedophiles, being eminently blackmailable, are more likely to be entrusted with secret knowledge about how the world really works, and with power. With all the assassinations of political leaders, not to mention those who have been discredited or ousted, perhaps those who aren't with the program are simply culled. And don't forget that pedophiles are very likely to have been abused as children themselves, so that these perversions would be self-replicating within certain families (or 'dynasties'), also the secrecy and fear of exposure would reinforce the sense of isolation from the rest of humanity. This isolation could be reinterpreted as a positive thing, as superiority, in the sense that nobody would be capable of understanding them, 'the rich are different', the rules don't apply to our kind, etc. Also, fear and isolation breed alienation and hostility towards 'the mob', with their petit-bourgeois self-righteousness. The 'Reign of Terror' associated with the French Revolution, with a mob unleashing its bloody, vengeful frenzy upon the elite, I suspect, is a powerful archetype for many of the globe's oppressors, including, ironically, the daddy of them all, the American hegemonists.

by **blanc** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 7:05 am

elite fascination with paedophilia is a topic also briefly raised by QQ on the Dutroux thread. I have a problem with the assumptions made that all the elite somehow fit into this model. I don't think that this is necessarily the case now, nor has been the case in past times. The acts which are attributed by survivors to certain members of the Belgian 'elite' , are very extreme in their cruelty. I am not sure it is worth trying to get inside the minds of these rats, but if we do try then we shouldn't make the mistake of presuming them to be a true sample of all rich, influential people. It is more useful, I think, to ask why NOW, when mainstream society does worship humanitarianism, and when we thought we had democracyand freedom, do we see such extreme aberrations in such measure. Attributing these behaviours to the rich, the aristocracy, is no more valid than, say, attributing them to one nation, one race - its rather a measure of our desire to distance ourselves from the acts than a rational analysis of what is going on globally, across races, across income levels. What went on in Belgian chateaux had something to do with the power to acquire facilities for sadistic crime, yes, but similar sadism has been attributed to less rich criminals (who also participated at the chateaux btw) The crucial thing about the role of persons of influence, is their ability to influence justice, opinion, 'fact'. This is true for the crimes they commit - and also true for the crimes anyone else commits if those people can blackmail them. What we need is more access to the truth, not more fiction imho.

by **havanagilla** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 7:34 am

good discussion (that is continues, everlasting ?). don't think elite has more tendency or genetics for paedo. its just that they can control more lives and pervert whole systems to allow them to do that. Cruelty, violence, moral indifference, on the other hand (not paedo in particular) do seem related to "elite", because of the greed to power that manifests as "the killer instinct". --- Paedo is something not yet understood I think Looking at history, it didn't exist as a prohibition at all (only incest did, and the reasons are different). I don't know when the concept of "underage" developed, but probably quite recently. But that would be another form of paedo, more like a benign (if such could exist) attraction to a younger person, withouth sadism. The RA situation is to my mind mostly sadism, and children are naturally weaker so they form a more convenient victim. Sadism does exist more among elite, because it is associated with a will to control and lack of inhibitions, which are associated with "success" in worldly affairs such as politics. -- Also, RA in the stylized form , elaborate rituals etc., require a level of education. that too is part of being "elite". BUt i remember reading a book about the life in the poor neighborhoods of new immigrants to Israel early on, and how much paedo/incest rape of kids was prevalent, it was not stylized though. and movies by Taviani brothers about the peasants in southern italy...well, perversions are everywhere. But it takes resources to stylize it, and this is what makes RA horrible. The planning, the whole "production" and detail and investment...sometimes with an elaborate sophisticated ritual or technology of control or special and expensive drugs. This makes it more horrible than a man who at night, while going to sleep with all his 13 poverty stricken kids and nephews in a one bedroom, uses his wife's shower absence to rape one of the girls and then tell her to shut up. Its like the difference between the systemic and sylized killings by the Nazis, compared to massive graveyards in other genocides. We tend to understand someone whose bad urges overcame his reason, but not a calculated evil by people who have all the resources to know better. this is called "pure evil" or "cold blooded" evil. -----

by **Quentin Quire** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 7:37 am

I wasn't trying to make a blanket assumption regarding the motivations of the elite - just trying to draw a similarity between theories on more conventional sex crimes and those involved in obviously RA or Paedophiliac 'Elite Crimes'. It's very difficult to prescribe any form of 'understanding' into what makes such monsters tick and do what they do. I just felt that the notion of 'high dominance' personalities (which exist in all factions of society - not just the elite) went some way in explaining the sexual drives and motivations. I would say that the insulation that power and wealth provides from the law and moral/ethical boundaries means that those inclined to perverse behavior will have more of an inclination to perform such crimes than the average man on the street. The sexual perversity of the elite can be seen throughout history from the Roman Empire to the Monarchies of 16th Century Europe. Wealth, power and control of legal apparatus may not cause paedophilia or SRA but may lessen the conventional social boundaries that stop most people committing such acts. Again - I'm not trying to make blanket statements, just providing some thoughts on how these crimes are facilitated.

hard candy: new film on pedophilia w/ a twist

hard candy: new film on pedophilia w/ a twist

by the way

Re: by the way

yeh i know

Re: yeh i know

Re: yeh i know

Re: yeh i know

Re: yeh i know

Re: yeh i know

Re: yeh i know

fictionalisation

Re: elites & pedophilia

elite

Re: elite

RE

Who is online