Sure, we all know of Stockholm syndrome and how it can relate to victims of abuse. Sure, an abused person can be intensely and honestly enamored with the abuser. And finally, sure, a thirteen year old can be manipulative and flirty and even try to instigate an affair with an older man.
However, none of the above even remotely excuses the abuser.
If there were a movie about a 40 year old who somehow developed an intense crush on a 13 year old which he didn't act upon - sure, that movie could possibly be framed in such a way that it hopes to elicit sympathy for the tortured protagonist.
However, the moment the protagonist of this movie became involved in sexual abuse of the 13 year old, any credible argument that excuses his behavior seizes to exist.
There are reasons why this behavior is criminal. And I hope I don't have to spell them out.
There is nothing to "reconsider" or "deconstruct" there; nothing that calls for bravery in order to be reevaluated. No. Sometimes an apple is just an apple, and a middle aged guy who beds a prepubescent girl is just a pedophile.
The film tries to be smart in offering two possible lenses through which the action can be viewed: either you believe she was his only victim or you don't (drumroll: there's a hint in the title!) However, the film also obviously expects us to judge the protagonist differently in accordance with our chosen lens.
But as I've said we can't. He's an abuser whichever way you look. And having an ambivalent stand about this does not only not make you a good dramatist it makes you a bad human.
Other than that, the film is boring and pretentiously acted, lighted and scored, leaving you with the feeling that the play might have had some great dialogue that was its redeeming feature and that the filmmakers decided to cut and replace with something "more filmic" such as long gloomy contemplative sequences that are plain boring and self-serving.
However, none of the above even remotely excuses the abuser.
If there were a movie about a 40 year old who somehow developed an intense crush on a 13 year old which he didn't act upon - sure, that movie could possibly be framed in such a way that it hopes to elicit sympathy for the tortured protagonist.
However, the moment the protagonist of this movie became involved in sexual abuse of the 13 year old, any credible argument that excuses his behavior seizes to exist.
There are reasons why this behavior is criminal. And I hope I don't have to spell them out.
There is nothing to "reconsider" or "deconstruct" there; nothing that calls for bravery in order to be reevaluated. No. Sometimes an apple is just an apple, and a middle aged guy who beds a prepubescent girl is just a pedophile.
The film tries to be smart in offering two possible lenses through which the action can be viewed: either you believe she was his only victim or you don't (drumroll: there's a hint in the title!) However, the film also obviously expects us to judge the protagonist differently in accordance with our chosen lens.
But as I've said we can't. He's an abuser whichever way you look. And having an ambivalent stand about this does not only not make you a good dramatist it makes you a bad human.
Other than that, the film is boring and pretentiously acted, lighted and scored, leaving you with the feeling that the play might have had some great dialogue that was its redeeming feature and that the filmmakers decided to cut and replace with something "more filmic" such as long gloomy contemplative sequences that are plain boring and self-serving.