So I just saw this movie, Hard Candy. I got it because it stars a young actress from my hometown, Ellen Page. She’s been working a lot lately, and word on the street is that she’s pretty amazing, so I thought I’d better get in the know. And folks ain’t lyin’. She is awesome.
******************As usual, I give fair warning about plot spoilers. If you like surprises, stop reading now, but by all means, go rent the movie and come back and tell me what you think! Seriously, it’s worth seeing, and I know it wouldn’t have been as good if I had known all the plot twists and what have you beforehand. So stop reading if you haven’t seen it, rent it, and come back later.******************
So the movie’s basically about pedophilia, although not really in the way most would think. And it brought up a lot of issues for me. It’s been a somewhat controversial movie, aparently, because it turns the tables on a typical pedophilic situation. In it, the character played by Ellen Page, a 14 year old girl, basically lures in a pedophile (played quite well by Patrick Wilson, who I really think is quite a talented guy), takes him hostage, and tortures him.
So, issues. Well, there’s pedophilia itself. Technically, this guy is a hebophile, not a pedophile. Hebophiles are attracted to older children, young teenagers. It’s kind of under the general umbrella of pedophilia, so I’ll stick to that. On another thread, some of us have been talking about pedophiles, and child pornography. I’m not real sure how accurate this is, but I had a friend who worked at a sex offenders clinic, and the way she described pedophilia is that it’s basically a sexual preference, like heterosexuality. Pedophiles are sexually oriented toward children, like straight folks are oriented toward members of the opposite sex. The problem of course being that children cannot give consent to sexual contact, and so any sexual desire a pedophile acts on with a child is non-consensual rape. But it hit home with me how utterly untreatable pedophilia could be if this were true – and it certainly seems to be the current consensus that pedophilia is untreatable. It would be like telling a straight person to work really hard to just stop being attracted to the opposite sex, and become oriented to people of the same sex instead.
Patrick Wilson does such a good job of his role. He is handsome, charming, smooth, non-threatening. He does all he can to butter up Ellen Page’s character. I can see how someone like that would be very convincing, very flattering to a young insecure girl. He’s not at all a one-eyed scary monster. He looks like anybody else, successful, smart, charming. Normal on the outside. This is what’s so creepy and scary about pedophilia – pedophiles are everywhere. They look just like everyone else. But they’re not. They’re deviant sexual predators who will do and say anything to justify themselves and insinuate themselves into the lives of children in their communities, families, and beyond.
Some of the dialogue between the characters was really great. The pedophile has all the right lines, all the careful things to say to put attention away from the fact that he seeks out young girls to manipulate and exploit. Ellen Page’s character said something along the lines of, “just because a girl imitates a woman doesn’t mean she is mature enough to do what a woman does.” Which brings me to issue #2 – the hypersexualization of girl children in our society.
This doesn’t happen so much to boy children here, but it certainly does to girl children. Have you been into a girl’s clothing store recently? The kids clothing is getting more and more adult, more and more sexualized and provocative. I’m no prude, but I definitely see a problem with dressing little girls up like adult women might dress to go clubbing. Whose brilliant idea was this trend? Some pedophile, I bet. I read an article about this recently in MacLean’s magazine. Dressing our daughers like sluts, or something like that, was the title. And it’s true – we are. Why? Why on earth are parents allowing their daughters to dress in revealing, provocative clothing? God, it’s so weird. Don’t they know about the pedophiles? It’s on every TV news program all the time, about the child porn and the kids getting attacked. Like, wake the fuck up.
Issue #3: vigilantism. The girl spends several weeks talking to the guy online, meets up with him, lures him in, and takes the pedophile hostage, and tortures him emotionally and physically. She even makes to castrate him. Yup. The director spent a very long time on this particular part of the story – the lead up to the castration scene, the whole ordeal itself, what she does with the testicles once she cuts them out, his desperate pleas for her to spare him this act. Then we find out that she didn’t really do it after all, just made him think she had. What a relief, I’m sure many people watching would say to themselves! Thank god she didn’t cut off his balls – that would be going Too Far. This scene, it seems, is mainly what the controversy is about in regards to this movie. In the commentary I watched after the film, even the producer and director made comments that once filming began and the actors started the scene, they felt a lot of sympathy for the guy.
Issue #4: interesting how attached society is to men’s balls. And penises, of course – they’re everywhere you look, the ever-present phallus, incorporated into designs all over the place. This cultural attachment, surprisingly, extends to women a good deal of the time. So much so that many women report after attending self-defense classes that they found it really difficult to get past the old “never hit a guy in the balls” deal – even when the whole idea is to fend off a guy who’s about to rape them with those balls! Which is mind-boggling to me.
And issue #5 – my own reactions tot he movie. I was totally rooting for the girl, throughout the entire movie. I wanted her to get away with it all. I don’t advocate violence, or vigilantism, at all, but I had no sympathy for the pedophile whatsoever. Even while he was squirming and crying and begging for his balls to be spared, I couldn’t have cared less about him and his balls. My only worry with the movie was, “how will she ever get away with all this?”
Interesting movie, to say the least. I highly recommend it.
I don’t know. I get what you’re saying, about dressing children in revealing clothing, and while I don’t agree with the practise, should it not be the case that children should be allowed to dress in whatever way and remain unharmed? Hell, we should be able to send children out absolutely starkers without having someone saying that they are the ones being ‘provocative’ – that’s like saying the child ‘asks for it’. When they cannot even give consent.
But then again – if it wasn’t for a pornified culture… would children EVER get dressed up in such a way? Would people even consider making thongs for six year olds? It’s quite the dilemma. I say, give ‘em clothes that’ll last and are comfortable and don’t make a sexualised statement. It doesn’t stop child abuse, it’s not that simple, but it does take away that terrible excuse of ‘they provoked me with their appearance.’
I saw that movie with my girlfriend. And, like you, we were rooting for the girl. Midway through the castration scene, we both commented that we didn’t feel any sympathy towards the guy. Although I was actually glad she didn’t really do it, it was more for the psychological effects it would have had on her.
Mwezzi – welcome! I hear you. We shouldn’t have to worry about our children getting raped, no matter how we dress them and send them out into the world.
More than blaming the kids for dressing provocatively, though, I am blaming parents, the media, clothing designers, and our pornified culture for making kids into mini-sexbots. it’s just wrong. Kids cannot consent to sex, so why are we making them into sexbots? And the point that kids can’t consent means exactly that – they need guidance and help and parameters and protection and discipline and boundaries, and dressing them up like mini-sexbots and teaching them to act in sexually suggestive ways is not doing any of that.
Marc Andre – funny, that’s the same thing the guy said to try to convince her not to cut off his balls! ha ha!
I have not seen the movie but I would have been rooting for the girl also. For her to remove the symbol of male pride and also the hormonal source of aggression is one neatly wrapped symbolic package. Hormonally induced aggression can be testosterone induced. Psychological and social aggression is a whole different animal.
Many men are complicit in making women squeemish about using a mans balls to a womans advantage. A casual statement about sterility or wrecking or killing a man is propaganda.
Human testicles are surprisingly robust for the amount of pain they cause their owners. It is the one part of the body that is completely out of synch with the pain = damage dynamic. An occasional incapacitating kick slap or squeeze is unlikely to cause permanent damage but makes one hell of a point.
Also if a man has already fathered all the children the couple desires, the balls, from that point on are pretty much expendable.
Makes you wonder what goes on with older couples.
Guidance, protection, discipline and a drop in the number of miniature Hiltons. I’d drink to that, Thinking Girl. And considering the fact that I’m teetotal, that’s quite a statement.
“…..pedophilia is that it’s basically a sexual preference, like heterosexuality. Pedophiles are sexually oriented toward children, like straight folks are oriented toward members of the opposite sex. ”
This is very wrong – it is not a “preference” as children are not sexually attracted to adults – children are not sexual adults, that’s why they are children and should be protected – saying it’s a preference means that it is a possible 2-way street and it most definitely is not. Saying it is a preference makes it sound like it’s an option. We all know that pedophiles are trying to make it this way, but they will not win – pedophilia and the other one hebophilia, are not preferences or options. They are both illegal and both wrong and will continue to be so.
“never hit a guy in the balls” deal – even when the whole idea is to fend off a guy who’s about to rape them with those balls! Which is mind-boggling to me.”
I have not seen this movie, but, this comment particularly got me.
I was raised by my father to ALWAYS go for the family jewels when in a situation where a man could rape or abuse me.
And I have never had ANY qualms about resorting to this method of self-defense, if the need arose for me to put it into practice.
I can understand MAYBE some people having an issue with the castration scene bringing up thoughts of white men castrating black men who supposedly raped white women, when 9.5 times out of 10, the white women were willingly laying down with the black men, and then crying rape when daddy and brothers walked in on them.
Kicking a man in the balls is one way to disarm a man, but, I surmise that many men think that is where most women will attempt to land a kick, and therefore, many men will be more protective of this area.
So, I have learned how to disable a man in other ways to protect myself, even when there is no gun, knife or other weapon around.
Won’t say HOW I will take the man down, but, it’s always good to have more than one form of self-defense in one’s repetoire of protecting oneself.
And as to parents who dress their girls as “come-hither-sluts”.
They have no damn reason to be so sorry in their daughters upbringing.
I have no daughters. But, if I did, they would be dressed from head-to-toe, leaving NOTHING to the imagination.
If you as a parent are not capable of raising your daughters right and having them dress appropriately, then you as a person have no right to have daughters at all.
Steve – “Hormonally induced aggression can be testosterone induced. Psychological and social aggression is a whole different animal.”
I’ve read about chemical castration for sex offenders, and the infamous “they” say that it removes the response but not the desire, or something along those lines. And sometimes that the frustration that arises from that leads to enhanced aggression. That seems to fit with what you said.
Oh god yeah, men are complicit in making women believe their balls are delicate – I’d say that men are likely the source of that little myth. Glad to hear that they aren’t so delicate at all. (Although, also disappointed to a certain extent, as men who attack women and get kicked in the nuts doing so kind of deserve to be sterile, or something. Karma.)
Personally, I think more men should just have vasectomies. Especially when they’re done having kids. I know way more women who have had tubal ligations than men who have had vasectomies. Vasectomies are minor office procedures. Tubals are major surgery. For that matter, why don’t men who are certain they don’t want kids just have a vasectomy? Makes a lot more sense than child support payments for 18 years for an accidental pregnancy that is really ultimately up to the other party whether to give birth or not. That’s not odds I’d be willing to take, being a person who doesn’t want to have children. Luckily, I’m the one who gets to make the ultimate decision if an accidental pregnancy were to happen to me.
Mwezzi – I’ll drink to that too. Champagne! That would be something worth celebrating. Although I could spring for some sparkling cider for you.
Huh? – thanks for your comment. I was expecting friction to this idea a lot sooner, actually.
Like I said, “I not real sure how accurate this is, but I had a friend who worked at a sex offenders clinic, and the way she described pedophilia…”
I’m not married to the theory, but it is a pretty current theory, and I think a fairly compelling one. And logically speaking, a sexual preference doesn’t have to be two-way, and I’m not sure I’d classify sexual preferences as “options” – like choices of some sort. I do kind of think that sexuality is fluid and not stringently one or another or another (or another, perhaps), but I wouldn’t go on to then call sexuality a choice, necessarily. That leaves open a door that is fairly dangerous, I think, in terms of ridiculousity like what’s going on in some christian groups that advocate gay and lesbian people to simply change their preference, since it’s a choice anyway. What’s a choice is whether to be sexually active or not. I’m not really sure that sexual preference is a choice.
And that’s the point behind what I said. I don’t think that pedophilia is an option, like a choice between two options. I think it is more like something that pedophiles can’t help, which makes it that much more dangerous – precisely because they can’t fulfill their desires without harming a child, either directly or indirectly. And I went on to say that “The problem of course being that children cannot give consent to sexual contact, and so any sexual desire a pedophile acts on with a child is non-consensual rape” – which is the sentence directly after the one you quoted half of so I’m sure you read it – so obviously I agree with you about that.
Yet, I also share a worry with you about classifying pedophilia as a sexual preference. Because we’ve kind of taken the line in our society that sexual preferences can’t be helped, ie., they are beyond our control, predetermined somehow, “natural”, and so we shouldn’t blame or assign guilt to someone on the basis of their sexual preference. And if we say pedophilia is a sexual preference, then doesn’t the same blamelessness apply?
Well, here’s the disclaimer: non-consent. Just because a person is heterosexual doesn’t mean he (or she, but overwhelmingly statistically he) can “have sex with” someone who does not give consent. Of course, we call that rape. (well, most of us do, although trying to weasel out of the consent issue is the primary defense for rapists. the dirty bastards.) And so, because we have already determined in our society that children cannot make responsible and rational decisions in serious matters (like sexual contact), so we can safely and logically assign blame to pedophiles who act on their desires, i.e., rape children, because children cannot consent.
The logical equation would look like this:
1. Pedophilia is a sexual preference for children
2. Children cannot consent to sexual contact
3. Non-consensual sexual contact is rape, which is a crime
4. If a pedophile acts on his (or her, but overwhelmingly statistically his) sexual preference, then he is guilty of the crime of raping a child.
I think that’s pretty sound.
Thinking girl
Mens testicles are delicate in the pain they produce but physically can take a lot of abuse. Also Testicular pain is directly related to a mans arousal pre ejaculation. Immediatly after ejaculation the pain factor from testicular motivation goes through the roof. The key is to cause ejaculation without penetration and then grab and twist or your variation therein. The same slap that would merely irratate a man pre ejaculation would most likely cause him to pass out after ejaculation.
As for Vasectomies, in a word, Yes. My opinion is all women should become educated on vasectomy procedure. Women should also not rely on a man to get a vasectomy without themselves becoming involved in every aspect of the process. If you want a man to have a vasectomy be prepared to observe the vas being cut yourself. Also don’t back down and don’t give an inch. I myself have had a vasectomy and can honestly say that the procedure was a complete anti climax. Almost no pain and laughably short recovery. All my qualms were symbolic and gender-cultural.
haven’t seen it, but: d’you know if this was based on an Andrew Vachss book, by any chance?
Steve – good information to know, thank you. Hear that, folks? Post-ejaculation, the pain factor for men’s balls is much higher than in a state of sexual arousal.
Also: Vasectomies aren’t that bad, physically.
Belledame – hi there! No, I don’t believe the movie was based on any book. The web site and the commentary on the DVD both state that the screenplay was an original.
I think you’d like this movie, you should rent it.
hhhhmmmm… this seems very odd to me. we live in a society where it is impossible for men to be victims, and impossible for women to be perpetrators. if a woman commits an act of violence against a man, it is immediately assumed it must be the mans fault. if a young boy tracked down a female sex offender (and yes, there are many studies that suggest there are as many female sex offenders as male sex offenders) and performed female genital mutilation on her (african style), would theaters full of people be cheering the young man on? you tell me…
R – nobody said that it is impossible for men to be victims. nobody said it is imposisble for women to be perpetrators. nobody said that men are to blame for their own attacks. and i’m sorry, but i just don’t believe you and your “studies” – your claim as to their existence is pretty vague, why don’t you actually provide some evidence? i’ve seen more than enough studies that refute what you’re saying: the overwhelming majority of sex offenders are men, although a very small minority are indeed women. and there is a difference between a penis, which is actually used as a weapon in rape, and clitorises, which do not serve any purpose remotely like that of a weapon, so they aren’t actually analogous. And as you should have seen in the post above, there has been a lot of controversy about this movie, not everyone was cheering the young woman on. And as I said, I don’t advocate violence or vigilantism, or genital cutting of any kind for that matter – I just had a hard time feeling sympathy for the guy, that’s all.
Pedophilia emerges from social conditions and power-relations which we are all caught up in. It is certainly not a ‘preference’, nor something people are born to be. Zizek, for instance, has argued that it is related to how social groups organize themselves around an obscene form of enjoyment; because he believes that the Catholic church is ideologically structured around the mythical asexual innocence of the child, he claims it has produced an obscene underbelly of pedophilia. For that reason, it’s completely possible that a sexually ‘normal’ man could enter the priesthood and become attracted to children.
Of course, the reverse gesture of openly asserting the fact that children are indeed quite curious about sexuality is equally false: it leads, as TG points out, to a sexualization of children. In fact, at least this historical event – in which children are overly-sexualized by consumer culture – has, by its obscence nature, revealed the truth that it is women rather than men who are sexualized. (Because, as TG notes, boys aren’t sexualized to the same degree as girls.)
Perhaps the way out of this deadlock is hinted at by Miranda July’s film Me And You And Everyone We Know, in which childrens’ interest in sexuality is given a distinctly surrealist twist: of course, children are not innocent of having sexual interests, but neither are they all-knowing. In fact, sometimes their ignorance combines with their interest to produce surrealist mistakes, such as the ‘back and forth forever’ gag (if you know the movie…)
What July’s film illustrates is that children have a powerful imagination which is not yet dominated by fantasy – a point which brings me to Hard Candy. My problem with it is that it is too obviously a cathartic fantasy. Ellen Page’s character is too articulate, too physically strong, too lucky, too knowledgeable about ropes and medications etc to be a credible character. So we are obviously being presented either with an adult survivor of sexual abuse who is fantasising about taking revenge back when they were a child, or an abused child who is fantasising about gaining ‘adult powers’ in order to escape their predicament. The film probably functions as a cathartic experience for some survivors of sexual abuse, but for all the wrong reasons: it remains at the level of fantasy. Indeed, the film has its own obscene underbelly of enjoyment: it allows people to consciously declare their objections to vigilantism, whilst simultaneously fantasising about such acts. I consider this a block to bringing the millions of pedophiles to true justice. Hard Candy is not an empowering film; in fact, it cynically plays on the fantasies of survivors of sexual abuse in order to make a profit. I can’t think of anything more disgusting.
Hmm.
That’s a very different read from my own. I found Hard Candy extremely powerful and disturbing. I’m not sure I’ve ever had as emotional a reaction to a film as I did to Hard Candy. When I left, the feeling I had was more that it was sort of a response to the mentality: “I hope someone castrates the bastard.”
I didn’t think that we, as the audience, were supposed to enjoy seeing him “get his.” The scene where she’s… hrm… going through the motions. That scene, it seems to me, is pretty intentionally designed not to be cathartic. It’s supposed to be disturbing. I think that most viewers probably left feeling disturbed and a little confused about the whole thing, which I think was sort of the reaction that the director was going for.
*shrug*
Most of the people I know who watched it had that reaction, at least, and that’s what I felt like was happening. That’s the whole reason that he uses a child to do this. In our society, we expect adults to commit these sorts of acts of violence- to be that cold or calculating or what-not. Seeing a child do the things that she does is supposed to seem disturbing. Even as we recognize how right she is in what she’s saying, we’re supposed to find her actions troubling. It’s that whole loss of innocence aspect.
That was my read, at least.
http://www.reason.com/news/show/28515.html
http://www.szasz.com/washtimesaccomplice.html
an interesting view on pedophilia by Thomas Szasz.
Thanks for the thoughtful review. I think I reacted similarly to Roy on this one. I found myself unapologetically feeling pity for the pedophile as the almost inhuman Hayley tortured him. By the end I wondered, though – Hayley’s tactics were difficult to logically argue with. I’m glad that the point of the film was not to decide which character was morally superior and by how much. They both missed the value of human life (perhaps a cliche phrase) to a certain extent, I thought, though obviously Hayley recognized the importance of innocence.
Though pedophilia, along with other sexual preferences or practices, has been accepted in different societies and time periods to varying degrees, I believe (based on no scientific evidence) that it is still partially “biological”. I mean, it sexuality varies greatly from individual to individual. Throughout history, there have always been those who have rejected sexual norms, sometimes due to their upbringing, other times due to no decipherable cause.
It’s also interesting that this movie somewhat explored the levels of pedophilia, if that makes sense. Is Jeff attracted to young girls? Does he have child porn? Has he ever molested a girl? Has he ever raped and murdered one?
Anyway, thanks again for the cool review.
Studies have suggested that seventeen to thirty percent of pedophiles are female, the biggest problem being a vast discrepancy in reporting between the actual rate of female pedophilia and the six percent that is actually reported. As far as why that discrepancy exists, consider what happens in reported cases; a teacher becomes pregnant by her twelve year old student… and gets child support from him. She actually threatened to castrate him when he visited her in prison a year later. They actually resumed their problematic relationship after her release.
These statistics apply to a lot of other related issues; why almost a third of victims are males abused by homosexual pedophiles, which then leads to a statistical relationship between homosexuality and pedophilia.
This kind of analysis emphasizes all kinds of issues that are not politically acceptable and not just because of issues that might be taken within feminist or homosexual circles.
Hard Candy, was written by a man, starting with the idea, of the child, who was originally far younger than Ellen who was eventually cast. The story that the script grew from, belongs to a very particular genre. A very peculiar subsection of an already obscure segment of the complete smut genre. These stories, are generally written by men, suffering guilt driven masochisms. He did not write the story from the point of view of Hayley. He wrote the story from the point of view of Jeff, acting out a deep seated desire to be punished.
While society can be engineered to accommodate any perversion, there is always a price to be paid. The highest price being replacement of the culture as a whole.
Totally awesome movie from beginning to end on all levels!
I have mixed emotions about the content of this movie like many others who have seen this movie. Although I think pedophilia is one of the most heinous crimes possible, I have a hard time condoning vigilance in punishing this crime or any other crime. I think it’s dangerous and could have a double edged sword effect. I think a better choice would be a more aggressive approach with education, computer lock downs, etc. Vigilante circumvents the due process of law. All Hayley has hard evidence of is that fact that Jeff had sick pictures of underaged girls in his house. Anything he said could be considered spoken under duress which is not submissible as evidence in a court of law.
I don’t know, this is a tough issue.
I know this is an old, old post and pretty much abandoned blog, but I had to weigh in here.
I loved this movie. From start to finish. Was totally rooting for his castration, and overjoyed when the fucker killed himself. The girl’s character should’ve been given a medal. I wish there were more real live women and girls out there able and willing to do what she did.
I can think of no better way to deter pedophiles than to castrate and/or kill them. I don’t have the slightest problem saying that. They should die or be permanently deprived of their weaponry (re : precious erectile tissue).
Dead men don’t rape, dead or castrated (preferably dead) pedophiles don’t molest. As far as I’m concerned, once you rape or molest someone, it’s open season on your ass.
I don’t feel sorry for abusive assholes, which is most men. It’s about fucking time they reaped what they’ve been sowing for thousands of years. Fuck. Them. All.
(P.S. I don’t care if any men reading don’t like my comment or it alienates them or doesn’t endear them to me or feminism or whatever. Fuck you. I don’t need or want your support or approval. If you take issue with my comment, you’re an entitled ass. Period.)
CJ.
I just watched Hard Candy and felt that it would be good to see reactions to it from others. I had no sympathy for the guy in the movie at any stage. The only time that I would have some sympathy with someone with those urges is if they sought help through being unable to control themselves.
As far as going for the testicles goes, I wouldn’t wait until post ejaculation before striking them. A friend of my mothers who is a Krav Maga instructor has taught many girls about a move where you wait until an attacker exposes his testicles before you quickly grab, twist and pull them as hard as you can. She has stated that it will make any man freeze in agony before he passes out in under 10 seconds if you squeeze hard enough, but you must lock your fingers around the top of at least one testicle before squeezing them. She tries to educate as many women as possible about this technique.
Well worth remembering Thinking Girl!
Niccy