As you yourself acknowledged earlier, Léon was supposed to be at the level of a fourteen or fifteen-year-old, according to all sources. And though you apparently don't believe it is possible, there are teen girls who watch over younger boys and teen boys who watch over younger girls. Maybe your personal experience has been different, but many older children are capable of watching a younger child without attempting to seduce them. Being forced to watch a younger child might more typically drive the older kid into believing he or she had been punished as opposed being invited to free sex. Chances are much better that the older boy would be obsessed with a girl his own age or older and younger girls would be despised as beneath his notice. A generally shapeless 12-year-old isn't what most people would consider an ideal sex partner. Most public libraries in the country allow younger children to attend the library if they are accompanied by an older child, because it is quite common for parents to put a younger child under an older child who will be responsible for its welfare as a surrogate parent, no romance anticipated or normally encountered.
As you yourself posted earlier in this thread:
"LB: No, I'm not responsible for what people think. The story is about two kids, a girl and a boy. They're both 12 years old, in their minds, and they're both lost and they love each other."
In the special features, he's referred to as 14. I didn't hear 15 anywhere. Don't bump the age up.
Look at the Besson quote. Two twelve year olds who love each other.
That rules out paternal. It's platonic or romantic. Maybe a mix of the two.
It's interesting that you repeatedly talk about free sex and seduction. Do you consider being left alone with someone you find attractive as an invitation to have sex? Free sex no less? No money exchanged?! I think most people would at least expect to pay for sex when they're left alone in a room with someone they find attractive. I'm being a bit too sardonic now.
I mean, I specifically said that "Just because someone doesn't take advantage of a peer for sex, doesn't make their affection and love paternal. It can be romantic and selfless."
Doesn't take advantage. Doesn't have sex. You're a bit twisted dude.
Otherwise, as for Maiwenn, you said: "Besson repeatedly had relationships with girls that age." I replied that there is no evidence that he had a relationship with anyone else that young and that Maiwenn sought him out (at 16. When Maiwenn was 15, Besson was attending press conferences and awards programs relating to Nikita with his wife Anne Parillaud and Maiwenn was going to press conferences for her 1991 film La Gamine.
You're ruling out that they were together when she was 15 because he was married to someone else. That's rather extraordinary.
How old was Milla Jovavich when he met her? Maiwenn was in The Fifth Element, engaged to Besson, and they had a 2 year old child together. Do you think Besson started seeing Milla before he split with Maiwenn?
Milla was the same age as Maiwenn. He was with her only a few years after Maiwenn, and it started while he was still with Maiwenn. So no, Maiwenn is not the only girl half his age, a few years past 12, that he's been with. Two documented. How many others?
He repeatedly casts tall waifs with angular androgynous faces in his films. Does he sleep with any of them, or is it purely a celluloid fetish now? If he doesn't exploit his position of power to bed women anymore, at what point do you think he stopped doing so? If I want to jump right off the gossip cliff, I could suggest that he has essentially quit directing because producing makes it so much easier to focus on bedding the young girls he puts in his movies. But we don't need to go that far.
But still, you ignore the issue of cheating, selfishness and shallowness. He wasn't just dating Maiwenn, but engaged and with a kid. They had a family together. She was in his latest movie. He leaves her for the star of that new movie. Forget their ages; how is it okay to treat people like that?
As for Maiwenn's credibility, I don't know the truth but I do know a great deal about purported sources for the story prior to her very late claim ten years later and that she has a history of self-aggrandizement.
Okay, so don't cite Maiwenn as a credible source for Besson being a good guy.
As I also said, if you want to see romance or sex, you will see romance or sex. I'm not going to argue what MUST be behind each individual scene you are attracted to anymore than I would attempt to convince you that what you saw in Rorschach ink blots was really something else. What I argued in my summary (and BTW, what was noted in Reno's article about what his character thought and would have done if he had survived and they had stayed together) was that he had no romantic interest in her at all. He treated her gently and loved her as a child who needed to be somewhere else in order to survive.
You just did precisely what I asked you not to do. You ignored the specifics, gave a summary of the movie, and concluded his love was paternal.
You also threw in that I was "attracted" to the scenes I mentioned. You bring up Rorschach ink blots again. You're saying that it's my perception that Leon saw Mathilda as a potential lover, that it's my attraction to her that I'm portraying onto him.
Why would he almost kill her in her sleep? That is not loving or paternal.
Why would he bring her along with him to kill people? That is not loving or paternal.
Why would he turn down her offer of sex by saying he wouldn't be a good lover, then regaling her with his romantic history? That is frustrated loving, but not paternal. That is the way people talk to each other when they are potential lovers. It would be incredibly bizarre to hear a father talk to his daughter that way.
All the bullet points I made show he wasn't paternal towards her. If I watch the film again, I'm sure I can find a few other moments where there is no room for interpretation.
If your point of view was valid, you could be specific. You refuse. Your silence is surrender.
You talk of the symbolism and multiple interpretations of the film, and that Besson does not do commentary. Yet you keep falling back to comments made by Besson and the cast to defend your interpretation. It's a strange contradiction.
A couple I know are getting married...
...the fools
reply
share