No wonder he showed 12 years old hitting on a grown man in his forties. He himself always dated or married young girls all the time. French paedophilia at best.
-Oh lord, Do we have the strength to carry on this task in one night? Or are we just jerking off.
He himself always dated or married young girls all the time.
I don't get your logic.
Young girls have crushes on older men all the time. Nothing remotely "pedophiliac" there. Now, if Leon had reciprocated her feelings, we'd fall in dark territory, but as long as the only character pursuing "love" in the film is the kid, I honestly don't see what's wrong with it.
When I was ~30, I met my younger cousin (she was born and raised in a foreign country until then) for the first time, she was 7 or 8 at the time. A few weeks later, I received a love letter from her in the mail. I thought it was cute, but based on your comment, you probably think it makes me a pedophile...
As for Besson's relationships, I'm not sure what "young girls" he's dated, but as far as his "official" relationships go, he married...
-Anne Parillaud, born in 1960. One year younger than him, he was 27 and she was 26 when they married.
-Maïween, born in 1976. 17 years younger than him, he was 33 and she was 16, when they married.
-Milla Jovovich, born in 1975. 16 years younger than him, he was 38 and she was 22, when they married.
-Virginie Silla, born in 1972. 13 years younger than him, he was 45 and she was 32, when they married.
...so, while I understand that from an American's perspective, his relation with Maïween is questionable, at best, the fact remains that he has never been proven to have had a relationship with anyone considered a minor in the eyes of French law, which has an age of consent of 15. One questionable case doesn't really support your claim that he "always dated or married young girls all the time".
>>> When I was ~30, I met my younger cousin (she was born and raised in a foreign country until then) for the first time, she was 7 or 8 at the time. A few weeks later, I received a love letter from her in the mail. I thought it was cute, but based on your comment, you probably think it makes me a pedophile...
1. About 30 you can still be quite attractive. The character Leon looked to me in his early 50's, was very unattractive, and looked like a total creep.
2. Your cousin sent you a love letter. Matilda said to Leon, in a very elaborate speech: I want to have sex with you right now. Why do you draw absolutely no distinction between those two, and equate them?
Scariest words in English: We’re from the federal government and we’re here to help. R. Reagan
As you have me and most anyone who has ever challenged you on ignore, you probably won't see this, but it is not uncommon for adult males in positions of responsibility over children to be propositioned in this way. In fact, social services that support children often require a second adult to be in the room whenever a child is involved, because of the potential for unwanted sexual behavior.
Leon was an oasis in a desert of loneliness and despair for Mathilda and she, like most children, had nothing else to show how valuable he was to her.
In addition, her cultural background told her that women were only attractive to men as objects of sex.
Not only did her proposition to him not make him a pedophile, only his actions could do that, but it probably had less to do with her sexual urges than with her desire to show him how much he meant to her. This, in fact, probably explains why he did not demean her offer, but rather sidestepped it.
1. I'm not sure why I even have to make this argument, but looks aren't all that matter.
From the moment Léon offered Matilda his handkerchief, he became her "knight in a shining armor". Looks have nothing to do with her feelings towards Léon. Matilda lived in a family she hated (save for her brother), where everyone seemed to beat her up for whatever reason they could come up with.
Opposite to that, you have man-child/hit-man Léon who (inadvertently) demonstrates he cares more for her than her own family. And then, when he "saves her" by letting her inside his apartment, right after her entire family was gunned down, he effectively becomes her only family and she starts having this fantasy where he could be her lover.
Also, me "still being quite attractive" at 30? That's quite the understatement, I'm a sex symbol, I've been hit on by women and men alike, of all ages, throughout my life, but just like getting hit on by a guy doesn't make me gay, getting hit on by a kid doesn't make Léon a pedophile.
Léon, however and as you have pointed out, is "very unattractive" by American society's standards. That, coupled with the facts that he's a rather reclusive immigrant, and is depicted as being "mentally slow" (at best...) tends to imply that he might never have loved or been loved in his life. The guy watches old Gene Kelly movies in his free time, that doesn't exactly scream "womanizer" to me.
He obviously doesn't know what to do with that girl whose life he saved (he almost "gets rid" of her while she sleeps...), but one thing's for sure (as far as we can tell), he doesn't display any kind of sexual attraction to Matilda throughout the movie.
2. I draw a distinction, obviously. You seem to have missed my point, though.
No matter the "intensity" of a kid's crush towards an adult, for as long as the adult doesn't reciprocate, there's nothing remotely "pedophiliac" going on, whatsoever. Every time she "makes a move" towards him, he pushes her back, usually after coughing up his milk form surprise.
The girl is young, lost and confused and she finds this man who represents everything she wants to be, a strong independent person who can kill anyone who crosses him (and their entire crew), while she's a weak dependent person who lost her entire family to some sociapath (and his entire crew), the "sexual ambitions" of Matilda are secondary to this.
>>> I draw a distinction, obviously. You seem to have missed my point, though.
You said that if the OP considers Leon a pedophile, then he would probably consider you one as well over the episode with your niece.
You are thus equating the two, and saying that anyone who finds Leon a pedophile would find you one as well.
I was therefore pointing out a distinction between the two scenarios, and pointing out that even if the OP considers Leon a pedophile, that doesn't necessarily mean that he would consider you one.
And in fact, I think that very few people, the OP included, would consider a 30-year-old getting a love letter from a young girl a pedophile.
The above doesn't mean that I didn't get your point about Matilda being the initiator.
There are more points to consider, but time permits me to add just the following for now:
Leon doesn't say to Matilda: "I cannot be your lover because you are a 12-year-old girl and I'm a 50-year-old man." He says that due to his mental issues, he is not fit to be anyone's lover. The implication is that if he were "in a better place", he would not rule out being her lover.
(You may feel that he was not telling her the truth when he gave that reason, but I feel he was telling the truth.)
And in fact, in my opinion, his speech to her at the very end of the film is a declaration that he is now better and wishes to be her lover.
Scariest words in English: We’re from the federal government and we’re here to help. R. Reagan
"And in fact, in my opinion, his speech to her at the very end of the film is a declaration that he is now better and wishes to be her lover. "
Absolutely not. This snoozealarm guy seems to always look for the perverted point of view. He comes here to try to stir up controversy. It is best to just skip him altogether.
..*.. TxMike ..*..
No worries, life has taught me one can only see life through their own eyes, that what they see in everyone else is often but a mere reflection of themselves, or part of.
shareMy point was actually that an adult male who doesn't reciprocate the love of an underage girl is not a pedophile.
What I equated in my comparison between Léon/Matilda and me/my cousin was that the love/crush wasn't reciprocal, hence that feelings that only exist inside a child's brain do not mean anything about the target of their affections.
I don't see the distinction you seem to see in that context.
As for adding points, I'll merely add this one. At some point in the movie, Léon asks Matilda how old she is. She lies and says she's 18. We don't know if he believes that lie, I assume he doesn't, he's shown to be "slow", but not that slow. Either way, him believing the lie or not is irrelevant, because despite being told by Matilda herself that she's 18, he never "takes up her offer".
And while I could agree that his final speech was a declaration of love, to some extent, I personally perceived it as a declaration of love for life, Matilda somehow showed him a side of life he had never experienced before.
And while I could agree that by the end of the movie, he "loved" her, I disagree on the nature of his love for her. I'm thinking "platonic" and you seem to be thinking "sexual".
Either way, as is the case for any piece of art, each different person can have a different perception of a character's true motives and intentions. That said, OP was making it about Besson's own personal relationships, which is why I felt the need to step in. In that regards, our respective impressions on the movie and its characters are rather irrelevant to the point I was initially making.
>>> My point was actually that an adult male who doesn't reciprocate the love of an underage girl is not a pedophile. What I equated in my comparison between Léon/Matilda and me/my cousin was that the love/crush wasn't reciprocal, hence that feelings that only exist inside a child's brain do not mean anything about the target of their affections.
This is the third time you've made this point. I understood it completely the first time.
I am now stating for the third time that my point is that even someone who would dispute this point of yours, for whatever reason, would nevertheless very unlikely find a love letter from an 8-year-old to be pedophilia.
>>> In that regards, our respective impressions on the movie and its characters are rather irrelevant to the point I was initially making.
You made a point in your initial post that I disagreed with and I responded to that point. I don't know what your point is here.
>>> And while I could agree that by the end of the movie, he "loved" her, I disagree on the nature of his love for her. I'm thinking "platonic" and you seem to be thinking "sexual".
On what basis do you think it's platonic only?
1. Leon has already stated that his only issue with Matilda's request for a sexual relationship is his personal hangups, and he's now stating that they're gone.
2. Matilda has stated unambiguously that her interest in Leon is not platonic but rather sexual. And now Leon is telling her that he loves her and that she'll never be alone. Can there be any doubt how Matilda would have interpreted that statement? He is telling her that he is now ready for the relationship that she has been seeking! Tell me, what would he have to have said for you to concede that he desires a sexual relationship?
3. The way Leon caresses Matilda in that final scene, and even more so, the way he embraced her in the police station, did not look platonic to me.
Scariest words in English: We’re from the federal government and we’re here to help. R. Reagan
> On what basis do you think it's platonic only?
On the basis that even if we agreed Léon has untold (implied) sexual feelings for Matilda, he never acts on them. As far as we can tell, she loves him like (she thinks) a woman should love a man and he loves her like (I think) a father loves their daughter.
I watched the movie again yesterday, for the sake of this discussion, the "long" version, too, which includes scenes cut by Besson for making the American test audience "uneasy". I still can't find any indication that Léon wanted anything to do, sexually, with Matilda, hence why I claim their relation (from his perspective) was a platonic one.
1. While Matilda does make direct sexual advances to Léon at a few points in the movie, I don't think that's what he has in mind when he does his speech at the end of the movie. The way I perceive it, he is now ready to live life to its fullest extent and while I understand how you could assume that to include having sexual relations with Matilda and nothing in the movie clearly indicates that is not the case, nothing clearly indicates it is the case, either. As far as I'm concerned, the true nature of Léon's feelings towards Matilda are left to the viewer's interpretation. In this case, we seem to have differing interpretations on the matter.
2. Pretty much the same argument as for "1.", but again, one can't assume his speech directly refers to the sexual requests she made towards him. It could just as well refer to his inability to settle down, to grow roots, as well as the fact that she's now an orphan. On one hand, you have this man who never really lived his life and on the other, you have this child who lost everything that defined her life. Somewhere in between, they both help the other come to terms with their new station in life. Léon becomes a father figure despite himself, while Matilda finally finds an authority figure that doesn't treat her like a punching bag.
> Tell me, what would he have to have said for you to concede that he desires a sexual relationship?
Well, if he had made his speech just after she had make sexual advances to him, it wouldn't be as open to interpretation as it is now. Further, had he even kissed her a single time, maybe I'd consider Léon as a potential pedophile, but considering his only fault is to be too ambiguous towards her when he declines her advances, it would take more than that speech to change my perception of the character.
3. Really? You see this embrace (https://youtu.be/ZI8LXDeBMxI?t=1m20s) as "non-platonic"? In context, he comes home to learn she's decided to go on her own to murder DEA agents in revenge for her brother's death and he barges in their HQ kicking everyone's ass until he kills everyone standing in his way and saves her... I can't even imagine the nature of their feelings at that moment, but I'd assume it's relief that makes them embrace with such intensity a lot more than sexual lust. They hug, I don't see anything more to it and I'm not sure how or why you see more to it.
As I pointed out earlier in the thread, as with any piece of art, each viewer can have a different perception of its meaning. I personally don't see anything in Léon's actions that seems to support the theory that he's a pedophile. Yes, their relation is awkward, maybe even ambiguous, but there's no clear indication at any point in the movie that Léon wishes to have sex with Matilda.
That said, I'm not Luc Besson, so I have no idea how he imagined the relationship between his characters. In the end, I figure my guess is just as good as yours.
Very good post. Yes, we disagree on certain significant points, but your post is sound.
I think part of the issue is that, like many characters in many movies, there is no such thing in the real word as a Leon.
I think that film makers often deliberately create characters that are entertaining and interesting, and that often comes at the expense of realism. That's a larger beef of mine with cinema in general.
(As another example, in my opinion, there is no such thing in the real world remotely resembling Hannibal Lector.)
Yes, there are people in the real world with flat affect, and other similar psychological complexes, but there is something about the character Leon that I just don't buy.
For one thing, he is a professional murderer and yet he seems to have no ill will towards anyone on this planet. That seems preposterous to me. Yes, I'm aware of the concept of a "cool cold killer", but I think those people are seething inside, and have simply learned to internalize their rage. From what I see, Leon is devoid of rage.
He seems to have absolutely no anger in him. Throughout the film, he is *always* in complete control of his emotions, even though he is put through the gamut of trying situations. Even when he scolds Matilda, he is in total control. Even when the 12-year-old Matilda propositions him, he calmly tells her that he is not up for the job.
He is an exceptionally wise, thoughtful, and capable man, and yet, he has absolutely no life whatsoever.
All of this just doesn't ring true to me.
(I don't think I've done justice to my opinion. I'd need more than the few minutes I have.)
I think it is precisely because the character Leon is portrayed with such a complete lack of feelings that it is easy for viewers like us to disagree about him.
Scariest words in English: We’re from the federal government and we’re here to help. R. Reagan
> He is an exceptionally wise, thoughtful, and capable man, and yet, he has absolutely no life whatsoever.
Exactly. At times, he looks "slow", yet when he's on a contract, he's literally a superhuman: omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent.
In some ways, at the beginning of the movie, Léon isn't "real", if the movie wasn't about him and Matilda, he'd effectively be a plot device, a character without a story and with motives limited to "he's a hit-man, hence he kills people".
And that would be it.
He'd simply be Victor the Cleaner, the character from Nikita which "inspired" Besson to make this movie.
However, as Besson wrote this movie, he inevitably had to flesh out his character, only somewhere in the process, it seems Besson decided to make the entire movie about "fleshing out" Victor the Cleaner into the more human Léon the Professional, by having him open his door (and his heart) to Matilda, who manages to "teach" him how to be human, how to be "real".
The end result sadly can have ambiguous sexual undertones, as your comments point out... And truth be told, we don't know how their relation would have evolved, had he survived at the end of the movie. It's not impossible that he'd turn out to reciprocate Matilda's affection (ie.: turn out to be a pedo), but as I've said before, I don't see him that way before he dies and, it becomes moot with his death.
---
And your comparison with Hannibal Lecter is spot on.
Likewise, in Silence of the Lambs, Hannibal is just a plot device, a character who can do the impossible, who knows everything we don't, even things he shouldn't know unless he managed to bribe a guard to keep him informed. Just like Léon can dispatch a dozen lackeys without breaking a sweat or break Matilda out of a DEA building without getting shot or caught, Hannibal can elude authorities so easily it defies reality.
The way Hannibal breaks out of jail in Silence of the Lambs posing as a guard he dispatched is also very similar to how Léon almost escapes the building at the end of the movie, posing as a SWAT agent he dispatched. In both cases, the plan is far fetched and requires Hannibal/Léon to make a break for it at some point, after getting out of the building without being found out, not to mention the timing that must be perfect, yet which can't be pre-determined, considering the nature of their escape (or attempt). The only difference is Léon failed where Hannibal succeeded.
Further, when they decided to make Hannibal Rising, Thomas Harris was faced with the same problem as Besson was when he decided to flesh out Victor into Léon... How do you make "human" someone that can only exist as a "superhuman" entity? You simply can't, which is why Hannibal Rising was so poorly received, in my humble opinion... I personally like that movie as a "stand-alone" revenge movie, but in the entire Lecter mythos, it doesn't really explain anything, there's still a huge missing link between the end of Rising and the events of Red Dragon.
Wow, really nice post.
For the record, even if Leon were to ultimately have sex with Matilda, I don't think I'd call it pedophilia.
On a technical level, she's 12 I think, so it would be hebephilia, not pedophilia.
But the larger point is that society in general doesn't know what to think about sexuality of girls of the age 12-18.
On the one hand, many girls get their period by 12 and 13 and are capable of conceiving and giving birth.
Men and women are also capable of sexual enjoyment well before age 18.
Throughout human history, for thousands of years, until about 100 years ago, women and men getting married in their teens was par for the course.
The concept of men and women in their teens not being full contributing members of society is a relatively recent phenomenon, with elementary school, high school, college, graduate school, phd, post-doc. In certain professions, you don't become fully qualified till your in your mid-30's!
In most of human history, children as young as age 5 were putting in full workdays alongside their parents. So there was no such thing as delayed adulthood. Once a child entered puberty there was no reason for them not to assume the responsibilities of adulthood and being treated as full adults.
But nowadays, there seems to be a hypocritical dichotomy. On the one hand, a man of age 30 having sex with a 14-year-old is exposed on national TV by Mister Sit-In-That-Chair.
On the other hand, pop culture, with all the sexual references in sitcoms, music, magazines, clothing styles, etc. clearly aimed at minors, seems to take it for granted that it's okay to be completely sexually open to these youngsters.
Just some food for thought.
Scariest words in English: We’re from the federal government and we’re here to help. R. Reagan
That sounds right on all counts and pretty much how I view the evolution of societal and sexual norms through history and cultures.
I enjoyed having this discussion with you, have a nice day!
Director has thing for little girls... Need I say more? I will for the sake of discussion. Another classic example of someone using the pedo scenario, as their corner stone when they try to build a case against this film. It would seem they have no other foundation to support their theories, ideas and dislikes about this movie. I'm not sure the OP is interested in a discussion in the first place. Maybe they just wanted to get the ball rolling (so to speak).
shareWell, Leon could've told her that he is about her father's age or at least that she is too young to have sex and should make better decision for herself. But no, all he did was brushed it aside like there is no time for it now but in future maybe.
Leon as character is certainly not a pedo as shown in movie but lack of dialogues between characters could also imply whatever not told could be true in future.
All he did on Mathilda's advance is told a sad story about his girlfriend and how he came to US and never had another gf then all he said is "You see, Mathilda, I won't be a good lover." So, if he didn't had a sob story to told, he would be fine to be her lover. Isn't that implied or at least it's an open offer in future that they would hook up.
I know that young kids hit on grown up people all the time but isn't this grown-up people' responsibility to at least tell them what is right or wrong. I don't get the people supporting these kind of ideas and going nuts over it, as a movie it's a good one but I'm not gonna support half-baked ideas like that just because movie was good.
-Oh lord, Do we have the strength to carry on this task in one night? Or are we just jerking off.
@ surpan
I fully agree with your post.
Scariest words in English: We’re from the federal government and we’re here to help. R. Reagan
>>> But no, all he did was brushed aside like there is no time for now but in future maybe.
If Leon's intention was to accept her offer, why would he wait, they are already in the moment. At what time in the future are you referring? the next day, next year, when?
>>> lack of dialogues between characters could also imply whatever not told could be true in future.
The lack of dialogue between characters could imply certain things as you say, but only when your imagination brings them to life. The lack of dialogue could also be implying nothing, isn't that true also?
>>> So, if he didn't had a sob story to told, he would be fine to be her lover. Isn't that implied or at least it's an open offer in future that they would hook up.
I'm sorry, but I don't see the implication. I guess that depends on the viewers interpretation of the scene. It appears that mine and yours are different. Not everyone is going to perceive this scene, as you do. Like I said before, they are already in the moment. For what reason do you believe, that he is waiting for sometime in the future? Again what time in the future are you referring to? Since I am aware of Leon's fate, I see no future that you repeatedly speak about.
>>> I don't get the people supporting these kind of ideas and going nuts over it, as a movie it's a good one but I'm not gonna support half- baked ideas like that just because movie was good.
Let's not get things turned around, and out of context of your original post. You posted the statement along with your comments, I simply responded to your post as others have done. In no way do I support the idea of adults and minors engaging in sexual relationships. Who do you believe is supporting half-baked ideas, what people are you referring to, those of us that defend the film? I'm not supporting these ideas, neither am I going to remain silent. Did you not expect anyone to challenge your comments? If the film is going to survive these kinds of attacks, then there has to be a balance. As of this date, it appears that the film's popularity is doing just fine.
I think it was half baked idea because it didn't clarify anything rather than creating a confusion that would he be Mathilda' lover if he unfortunately didn't had that particular sort of history.
Again what time in the future are you referring to? Since I am aware of Leon's fate, I see no future that you repeatedly speak about.
>>> I think it was half- baked idea because it didn't clarify anything rather than creating a confusion...
If you were confused by the scene, then why do you automatically brand the film Pedofillia?
>>> First, you're only aware of Leon fate when you watch the movie again, if you're a first timer then you're not aware of Leon fate till the very end.
Obviously, we both have seen the film, so you and I are aware of Leon's fate. Yet you say that the scene is confusing, therefore you attack the film and the director because the scene is confusing to you and possibly to others.
>>> So, Leon directly related himself not having sex with Mathilda as his guilt of past rather than that SHE IS IN FACT A MINOR...
Are you certain that there are no other possibilities? While Mathilda is shown expressing her Love freely and making all the advances in their relationship, I believe some of us tend to forget that Leon loves Mathilda also. This should be evident leading up to this scene. Telling her this story is his way of not demeaning her, and an answer to her question " Why Not?" that he believes, she can more easily understand. This is my interpretation of the moment, and clearly we interpret this scene differently, while others will have a different interpretation than You and I.
>>> the point is that scene was confused enough to clarify nothing...
So you want to clarify for everyone that the film is about Pedofillia? That is what you are insinuating in your original post. You even stated in your comments " French Pedofillia at best". You have stated more than once that the scene is confusing, combine that along with the comments in your original post, it would seem that you are letting your imagination rule out all other possibilities.
Just admit it, it was a stupid scene.
-Oh lord, Do we have the strength to carry on this task in one night? Or are we just jerking off.
>>> Just admit it, it was a stupid scene.
Your statement only proves the point that I was trying to make in my first reply to your post, and I see no reason to continue wasting our time.
I explained my 'foundation' of question enough, but you're not comprehensible enough. So, adios.
-Oh lord, Do we have the strength to carry on this task in one night? Or are we just jerking off.
>>> I explained my 'foundation' of question enough, but you're not comprehensible enough.
Good rhyme!, but I see you are still confused! ADIOS!!!
[deleted]