MovieChat Forums > The Crush (1993) Discussion > Was Nick such an innocent victim?

Was Nick such an innocent victim?


I was re-watching this movie after a few years.

I am NOT excusing anything Darian did in this film. However, I feel that Nick led on her a bit, which provoked an existing mental illness that dealt with rejection issues.

1) He took her to the lighthouse and was not firm enough when they kissed.
2) He kept saying things like, "If only you were older..."
3) He claimed they'd always be friends, then turned around and rejected her. In Darian's eyes, Amy stole Nick from her.

I think if Nick had taken a firmer line from the beginning, some of this could've been avoided. He had no business thinking for a second it was cute. In my opinion, they're both pretty sick.

reply

Didn't he also hide in her closet so that he could watch her bare it all?

reply

Well, he went into the closet to avoid being detected. He had broken into the home, not knowing she was there. He wanted to find proof that she stole his picture and was obsessed with him. He heard her and the bathtub, and hid in the closet.

However, he stood there staring while she undressed. If he was so damn innocent, he would've turned his head or closed his eyes. So while it wasn't his initial intent to see her naked, he clearly didn't mind one bit (she was rather attractive, but still...she was 14...and he was a hypocrite.)

reply

What if you were in his position? Would you have close your eyes?

reply

I'm a straight woman. So, I can't say.

But I think he needed to accept more of the blame for all that happened. I don't blame him for looking, but he didn't have to act holier-than-thou.

reply

I don't think he should be blamed for anything, although I would have blocked her kiss from the moment she moved toward my face (actually I wouldn't have even taken her to the lighthouse). He was kissing back but then he cut it off quickly. If he didn't hide in her closet with the intent of looking, then he's not really a creep. Even though he checked out the goods, it's not like he touched her. Plus, she exposed herself purposely. Nick turned down every opportunity to have sex with this girl, so that should have been a clue to Adrian that Nick clearly wasn't interested (or at least he didn't want to take the risk). She's 14 not 8, so she should have some idea of the law. She should have invested her time in a mature high school boy or waited four more years if she thought Nick was worth the wait.

reply

He is human! Darian took it WAY too far, and she suffered the consequences. The guy went way above and beyond to flee all her advances. Recoiling and blocking her kiss would have made her feel as if she were repugnant. He was MORE than appropriate, and anyone who says otherwise is condoning her behavior.

Geez, I cannot believe that people are saying this stuff. No wonder men don't want to be teachers, with people out there ready to accuse them for things they haven't even done, I don't blame them.

"...nothing is left of me, each time I see her..." - Catullus

reply

I agree that he didn't act responsibly initially, but then the girl was pushing it.
ps, why is everybody switching between Darian and Adrian? I haven't seen the movie in a while, but it sounds like you are talking about Alicia Silverstone's character.

reply

"why is everybody switching between Darian and Adrian?"

Because different versions of the movie use different names for her character.

reply

really? that's so weird! why would they just switch her name...
and do you mean, the versions as in the tv version and the regular, unedited version...??

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

You like the younger ladies, right? Maybe not that young, but come on. Don't you remember... They BOTH were kissing, and if you notice, he doesn't pull away at all for the first part of it. In the middle of it he realizes what he's doing.

reply

He's not fully to blame but his actions still contributed. He could've loked away and he could've just simply said to Adrain "Im looking for my picture" instead of running to the closet. The point was he lead her on then he developed a relasonship with Amy and Adrain thought she needed to get Nick's attention on her again, so she exposed herself purposly. The point was he was the adult in the situation and he was being fair to Adrain. And he leid to Amy about provoking her crush on him and he leid to the police when he said he never laid a hand on her.

reply

Don't forget that at the start of the movie Nick chose to stay in that guest-house because he had seen Adrian/Darian out the front of the main house in her roller-skates when he almost ran into her with his car. I think the long lingering look he gave showed that he was certainly interested in her.

reply

[deleted]

"Even though he checked out the goods, it's not like he touched her."

By those standards, men who watch child pornography are not sick as long as they don't actually molest a child.

reply

I see your point. However, though she's underage, Adrian doesn't look anything like a child (she was played by a 17-year-old Alicia Silverstone who looked 20 at the time), which is why I wouldn't compare Nick to a child pornographer.

reply

Sounds like the logic of a taiwanese pimp

reply

I have a 14yo niece--eww! I'm a straight man and YES, I would have closed my eyes--I do not find children sexually attractive no matter how developed their bodies or mature their personalities.

reply

You can't really ask Men this question (whether Nick is equally to blame), because they always stick together and defend each other against everything, even things that are definitely wrong. Or, perhaps they just don't understand why things are wrong (what Nick did). It's part of the male ego, they always think women are hitting on them and interested in them, even when they're not. Just ignore them altogether, and after a few months of only getting attention from their male buddies, they'll change their tune.

Hunting isn't a sport... In a sport, both sides know they're playing.

reply

The last post doesn't add much to the debate. I thought Nick felt caught between a number of stools. She was too young for him (she was) and she was making all the advances (he didn't appreciate that). But there was little doubt that when he found himself in her bedroom with her naked it wouldn't have taken much for him to make a move. I thought that all that prevented him at that stage was the thought that he would get caught.
Do not stand at my grave and cry;
I am not there. I did not die.

reply

MJK1 I think he pretty much was a pervert with class....I think its hard for all of us to question ourselves in his position. Would you sleep with a 15 year old or wouldnt you??? And is it pedophilia if you do??? Seriously now....

reply

That's a strange question, Darkness! I think it's wrong to see him as a pervert; despite several opportunities, when he could get to do whatever he wanted, he tried to avoid her - she was chasing him. I thought that, for a moment, when he saw her naked in her bedroom, it seemed as if it wouldn't take much for him to step seriously out of line.
As for me? You say it's a hard question for each of us to answer. If I was a 16/17 yr old guy, and the girl was who we saw in the movie, I would in a shot. Had he gone ahead it would have been sex with an underaged person and therefore statutory rape. But paedophilia? In my opinion not really, even if she was only 14 and I suppose legally still a child. As far as I know there is no legal definition of paedophilia (from the Greek "lover of children") but it is generally regarded as an adult whose sexual preference is for prepubescent children although some countries, including the US, extend the description to those whose preferences are children up to adolescent age. But, to me this only adds to confusion instead of clarifing things. For example, should an 18 yr old guy, who is sleeping with his "mature" 15 yr old girlfriend, be classified as a paedophile because, legally, he is an adult and she is an adolescent?

Do not stand at my grave and cry;
I am not there. I did not die.

reply

Well no MJK1, actually I asked that because in some countries as you said , they marry children at ages of 8 and older....and I ran into this topic awhile back on the Lolita thread(Adrians version, not Kubricks), as someone there opposed the fact sometimes young girls(or guys if you want to get convoluted) have sex with guys by simply being the seducer as they can lie about their age, have a fake id to be permissible letting them in a 21 age bar or club!!! It's actually a very deep topic, and sometimes in the case of someone who has slept with a girl who seduced them and lied about their age, I just cant see that as being a crime.

reply

in the case of someone who has slept with a girl who seduced them and lied about their age, I just cant see that as being a crime.
I don't think you need to include any reference to seduction for your point to be valid. Boy meets girl, she lies about her age, he believes her (why shouldn't he?), they begin a relationship which, in time, ends up with their sleeping together. There is no seduction; they end up having sex by mutual consent, although the guy may well have been the one who wanted to go to this level. But the harsh reality is that, in law, if she is underage, then he could get done for statutory rape.
In the movie, it would have been different; she looked like she could pass for 18 but he KNEW she was only 14. What was more, everyone around knew that he knew her age, so he was a goner if he tried anything.
But I take your point; it seems quite wrong that someone who is misled as to the actual age of someone gets prosecuted. Many underaged girls, already physically mature, can make themselves up to look as old as someone in her twenties. But the law makes little distinction; it's a bit like buying a stolen car. You could get prosecuted even though you hadn't a clue it was stolen. The law expects you to know this before buying it.
Only one solution, Darkness; become a monk! Although I cannot see you, or I, ever going that far.

Do not stand at my grave and cry;
I am not there. I did not die.

reply

SHEESH!

Nick was just a nice guy who happened to be incredibly naive' around this 14 yr old girl. To him she was "just a kid", regardless how mature she appeared. He made every effort to make friends with her - And respectfully since he was also renting the guest room of her wealthy folks estate! Of course he's going out of his way to be nice to her.

It wasn't until after she'd deleted his work and he'd found her shrine, and the repeat calls that he finally began realizing that Amy was right - Adrian was obsessed with him. Him hiding in her closet was no perverse 'act'. That was all her. Obviously he was scared, and confused. He was a nice guy caught in a bad situation. Period. If an obsessed girl turned around and disrobed in front of you - you'd look too! Like you'd have a choice.

Put yourself in his shoes. He has a psychotic teen girl completely obsessed with him. Nick was just trying to investigate things, come to some resolution, and hopefully make peace with it all - and get the girl to leave him alone (dah, why he was moving out - to get away from her)


Peanutlee33

reply

" they always stick together and defend each other against everything, even things that are definitely wrong. Or, perhaps they just don't understand why things are wrong (what Nick did). It's part of the male ego, they always think women are hitting on them and interested in them, even when they're not. Just ignore them altogether, and after a few months of only getting attention from their male buddies, they'll change their tune."

Women like you are the reason some of my better looking guy friends are either dating a fat chick or chronic masturbators. Thanks for the "ignore them" advice, because, really, it's not like girls do that all the time already...

reply

"You can't really ask Men this question (whether Nick is equally to blame), because they always stick together and defend each other against everything, even things that are definitely wrong."

_______________________________________________________________________________

As do women. The phrase "pot calling the kettle black" comes to mind

reply

It's part of the male ego, they always think women are hitting on them and interested in them, even when they're not. Just ignore them altogether, and after a few months of only getting attention from their male buddies, they'll change their tune.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The same is equally true of women as well - women are just as big egotists as men. Contrary to popular belief, not all chauvinists are male

reply

You can't really ask Men this question (whether Nick is equally to blame), because they always stick together and defend each other against everything, even things that are definitely wrong. Or, perhaps they just don't understand why things are wrong (what Nick did). It's part of the male ego, they always think women are hitting on them and interested in them, even when they're not. Just ignore them altogether, and after a few months of only getting attention from their male buddies, they'll change their tune.

Yeah this is so true. They always say women bring it on themselves. Men have no sexual self-control.

http://www.imageupload.org/?d=087783331

reply

Blaming Nick for Adrienne's actions equates to blaming the victim of a sexual assault due to their dress or level of intoxication. You fault all males for imagining women are coming on the them. Then, you fault Nick for not taking Adrienne's advances seriously enough and firmly rejecting them. While somewhat naive, Nick was courteous and restrained throughout the film. Blaming the victim does a disservice to all victims of sexual assaults which are predominately women.

You complain about men saying women bring it on themselves. Then, you hold Nick responsible for the actions of a young psychotic genius who attacked him for rejecting her advances. The victim is not responsible regardless of their gender.

reply

Wow. This is a toughie for me. As a parent, if some 24 year old woman allowed my 14 year old son to kiss her and I later found out that she viewed him in the buff, I'd want to rip off her arm and beat her to death with it.

On the other hand, when I was 17, I had a friend (also 17,) who was very intelligent, well read and very mature. It was our junior year of highschool and we had a new male teacher who was 25. My friend helped him out in class, helped out with him after school and he asked that she start calling him by his first name. Anyone who would have seen the two together outside of class would have thought that they were friends rather than teacher and student. I know she thought of him as a friend. Before long, she developed a crush on our teacher. Then, one day, she propositioned him in class, in french, not knowing that he spoke french. (Or that anyone else in class did.) You know what his response was? It wasn't, "Go to the office right now, young missy!", it wasn't, "That's it! You've got detention!", it wasn't "NO!" his response was, "You're a student!" Like it would have been ok with him if she hadn't been a student! I knew this teacher. He was a good guy. Normally, he wouldn't begin to entertain the thought of bedding down with a 17 year old girl. But, clearly, (at least to me,) it seemed he was at least slightly tempted. Which just leads me to believe that if something is dangled in front of someone long enough, sometimes even good people will consider taking the bait.

reply

I agree it is a toughie and the example you listed makes it even tougher! But, essentially, I think there would be little argument with your "treatment" of a 24 yr old who encouraged your 14 yr old child to undress; and it should not matter at all whether your child is a boy or girl - they are both adolescent and equally vulnerable.
As for your example, I'm not sure that I agree entirely with your conclusions as to why the teacher responded as he did. As someone in the same general age bracket of the teacher you referred to and someone who taught for a short while before moving on to something else, I actually see nothing wrong in his response. A teacher of 25, as in your story, is not that much older, relatively speaking, than a high school junior/senior. In addition, and depending on the level of maturity of the student, they could in fact be even more compatible. But there is a golden rule; it is not permitted for a teacher at any level (up to and including University) to engage in a relationship with one of his students, and could and probably would lead to his dismissal. This is to protect both teacher and student. Consequently, the response the teacher made is exactly what I would have expected, she was a student and therefore off-limits. In saying what he said he was letting her down as kindly as he could, he was saying that his refusal was not personal but due to school laws. Maybe he actually wasn't attracted to her but just didn't want to hurt her. Should he just have said "NO?" Why not tell the truth; she was a student, he was not permitted to date students and the sooner this became known the better.
But, despite this, I agree with your closing sentence with possibly one small amendment. You say your friend was very bright and mature for her age and, at seventeen, I suppose it is fair to say that most girls have reached or are very close to womanhood. So .. if something is dangled in front of someone long enough, sometimes even good people might find it difficult to resist taking the bait. That is why the rule is there and is strictly enforced. The teacher is an adult and the student is probably underage - he must wait until she graduates and then if they still feel attracted to one another .... well, I suppose they'd have her parents to deal with!

Do not stand at my grave and cry;
I am not there. I did not die.

reply

I dunno, I guess I'm just more harsh. If it had been me in our teacher's shoes, I would have sent her to the office then and there. Because he didn't, it caused a major confrontation between him and a male student in the classroom and quite a few not so flattering rumors were spread about the two of them throughout town. I wasn't at all surprised when he left our high school for another position. He never should have allowed her to get as close as he did.

reply

I'm still a bit doubtful about sending her to the office; I mean, from the point of view of the student, what big crime did she commit? It's up to the teachers to defuse these situations and try and ensure that they do not lead to confrontation or other grief. A problem that does arise is when students agree to help out with after-school activities with a teacher present to supervise - as in the case you mentioned. This can lead to wanting to treat the student as an equal - such as to ask him/her to call you by your first name. Also, especially with younger teachers, they see seniors as adults, or as close as makes no difference, and feel they should treat them as such. It seldom works though; come Monday morning the teacher must insist that normal business will be resumed, and he is addressed as Mr.
Kids do tease teachers though; propositioning one is a form of teasing. I might have said as he did "you're a student" but I would also have tried to laugh it off, make some sort of joke about it. Sending someone to the office is a punishment and an embarrassment. It might have been just a bit of overkill.
Do not stand at my grave and cry;
I am not there. I did not die.

reply

He was thinking with his d1ck. That was his mistake. He put himself in an awkward position with a girl that happened to be psychotic.

reply

Hell,

I would have done her; move out the next day and been done with it.
But its JUST A MOVIE!!!

reply

I would have done her; move out the next day and been done with it.
I think the point of the movie was that you would have had to put some distance between yourself and Miss Sexy. She showed that she was mean and as vindictive as hell (if she didn't get her own way), but likely to be even more mean and vindictive if she did. If you slept with her and then ran for cover she'd have tracked you down and God alone knows what strange thrills she might have had in store for you. You'd probably be glad to see the cops.
Still it WAS just a movie.
Do not stand at my grave and cry;
I am not there. I did not die.

reply

A grown man thinking about having sex with a minor: Okay

A grown man thinking about having sex with a minor, and actually does it: Not okay by law.

The whole point is, he can think about having sex with anyone or anything he damn well wants. Thinking is one of the few things that can't be controlled by law. Just a moment ago, I thought about killing someone. It was great because he deserved it. Am I a murderer? No. Not by law i'm not. There have been attempts to control peoples thoughts, but it has failed countless times. And it will continue to fail. Doing the act is world of difference. Did he do the act? No. So where is the debate?

No, I would never do a minor. Why? Because I don't want a muscled up jerk in sing-sing doing me. Common sense.

reply

[deleted]

I want to hear the rest!

reply

hell yeah, lets hear it

reply

[deleted]

Well you weren't exactly 18 at the time, so no one can touch you. Did she tell anyone? It doesn't matter anyway, you were under 18, so you can't get into trouble regardless.

reply

I would have done her; move out the next day and been done with it.
But its JUST A MOVIE!!!


I agree, and people just take things way too serious, and does not need to be taken so much in the wrong context, but I guess you people have all the time in the world to come to a board and argue.

I am a gore watching freak!!!

If it don't have it, it isn't worth the watch.

reply

Wow, you guys spread rumors about that teacher? I feel bad for him. Scary.



Global Warming, it's a personal decision innit? - Nigel Tufnel

reply

@vallester

It's very easy to entertain the thought of bedding down a 17 year old girl regardless if he's a good teacher/person or not.

reply

What Nick did was a pretty natural male reaction. He was flirty. He didn't mean it. It was more of an involuntary reaction. The point I think is that if you act that way around a mature woman, she'd give back and things would lead from there. You do this stuff to a child, they are completely oblvious and don't join the game.

Darien is on the cusp. She's not oblivious to these games, though he assumes she is due to her age. That's where he went wrong. She wanted to play, but just hasn't developed her game yet. But guys can't just turn off the flirt button. She's hot. It's not his fault she gave him a rise.

reply

How about the fact that at one point in the movie, while he was changing in the bathroom, he was naked with the door ajar- and she was hardly a foot away - what was that all about??? Very creepy...

reply

yeah i agree, he was aware she was in the next room and he was naked in the bathroom with the door opened. :/

reply

The question is what would he have done if she stepped inside for a closer look! From other events in the movie we are led to believe that he would have covered up and ordered her out; but the time for that approach should be at the beginning, not when things have got slightly out of hand - he wanted to see how far she would go and he wanted to see her reaction. A not "untypical" male reaction of preening oneself. If he was really genuine he would have slammed the door shut.

Do not stand at my grave and cry;
I am not there. I did not die.

reply

Darian was a psycho, she'd done it before, she was doing it again with Nick
and began to do it again with the psychiatrist and the mental institution. Remember she stole a picture of him............now she was obessed with the psychiatrist. She was truly a demented individual.

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

I think Nick's big mistake was in the kiss. If he had never kissed her then Darian/Adrian wouldn't be sympathetic at all. It adds some depth to the plot when you do kind of feel like Nick in some respects did her wrong. Of course either way she comed off as crazy, but Nick is definitely more the victim. But if he does (whether intentionally or not) lead her on. Though I do think the closet scene is irrelevant because one he is hiding from her not expecting to see her and she knows he is there when she drops the towel. Granted he doesn't look away, but that's another moment where there both kind of at fault. But he honestly doesn't seek her out in that instance.

reply

Hind sight is always 20/20.

reply

I have to agree with the concensus of posters here and say that Nick is not a complete victim here and a lot of what happened to him was his own doing...he never should have allowed that first kiss to happen. Fourteen year olds are vulnerable creatures who are going to take every word from an older man as gospel...especially this one, who clearly had unforeseen mental problems. And the whole thing of watching her undress while he hid in the closet was just WRONG!! Yeah, Nick definitely played his part in what happened.

reply

Agreeable that Adriane was not mentally all together. Nick had not been as responsible with dealing with the situation, had it heled if he resisted more? Probably not becasue she was determined to get him. It's easy for me to feel sympathetic to Adraine because im 15 and i have actually ended up fooling around and sleeping with a man in his 30's, granted I never stalked this guyu or anything as line crossing as what Adraine does to Nick I think its hard when your so young and you feel that an older guy likes then without warning he stops. It doesn't excuse her behavior but just look at it from her point of veiw.

reply

[deleted]

im 15 and i have actually ended up fooling around and sleeping with a man in his 30's,

really?

reply

At 15 you had sex with someone in their 30s?


At 15 I was very innocent.



Global Warming, it's a personal decision innit? - Nigel Tufnel

reply