This movie is very powerful and it has haunted me since I watched it. Initially I thought it was a very good film - now I'm starting to think that it's a fine film.
I spent far too long during the film questioning Tim Roth's motives for various directorial decisions. The more I think about it each concern I'm more reassured. For example, initially I was infuriated that we did not see the bath scene so that we knew the truth. I felt manipulated about something that you just can't toy with. But soon after I saw that the truth did have to take a while to unfold.
Also, I was concerned about Jessie being topless so often. OK, the burning incident makes a powerful point and I guess that we are also forced to examine Tom's sexual development, but I felt like a voyeur (is that the point?). Overall, I don't buy the argument that the casual family nudity states that there is something 'improper' about the family. This would suggest a reactionary morality that I don't think Roth is part of.
I'm surprise how some question Tom's motivation: is he just jealous. Christ! he's 15 and just learning about life, sex and the horrors within his family. It's positive that Roth does not "clarify" this issue as some wish.
But my main point is: who is CAROL? What is her role in the action? Maybe the novel might explain - but some reviewers say that there are major variations from the original book. I would really like to read other people's take on CAROL. I find this plot item the biggest mystery in the film. I think that as Carol and Jessie are from different generations Jessie knows Carol through Dad. Especially if Carol is the woman in the Polaroid's with Jessie - isn't she?. So I assume that Dad took the pictures of them? Therefore Carol is an accomplice in Jessie's abuse. Carol's home on a council estate suggests Dad's working class roots and that they knew each other from way back. Is this to give an historical depth to the abuse? I.E. it is not a recent occurrence (as some reviewers suggest) around the birth of the new baby. But you are posed with another uncomfortable and understandable contradiction that Jessie and Carol appear to be warm friends. When they greet each other I felt a warm hope that Carol was a confidant who 'knew' and could help Jessie. Surely Tom's 'treat' is part of a cover-up job?
Other points:- I disagree that it was wrong to put Tom at the centre of the action. Surely societies' thinking on child abuse is still only adolescent?
Some have stated that as we don't warm to the characters it's hard to feel "unconditional sympathy" for them. Please join the human race!
I agree so much with James Berardinelli when he stated "even when the sex is ostensibly consensual, it is rape". I think that you have to recognise a whole system of rape that Dad has created leading up to the scene in the bunker.
Some worry that Dad is presented as a nice guy (if "bluff"); others that he is "vocally abusive" (IMDB plot outline). Surely Dad's character is the central point of the film - that abusers are not scary monsters from a proletarian underworld that has little to do with society generally. I was stunned how Dad tenderly kisses, strokes and tells Jessie he loves her after raping her.
I find it really jarring that people on this board talk about the subject as "incest" (which includes a range of behaviour), "sexual desire", "a sexual relationship". This film is about sexual abuse! But worse: phil6875 says that in the book "is not really a story about child abuse, the father is not a child molester and certainly not a rapist" - as Jessie sort to seduce him. Phil thinks that (in the book) Jessie is the "monster". I am utterly appalled that this comment has not been challenged. It's still monstrous abuse! I find beni hill's satirical comments here less offensive.
5 out of 10 found this helpful.
Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Tell Your Friends