I just finished the film and am FURIOUS. In the novel, it was made perfectly clear that Ronnie MURDERED a little girl; a child! In the film, no such thing was made clear; instead, they had the damn nerve to act as though Ronnie might just be a creep who wasn't all that bad; um, no jerks, he was a child killer. They even said "Ronnie had done some bad things in the past, but so had Larry." Oh for God's SAKE; Larry had a nasty temper and pushed people away, and he made a terrible mistake when he was a cop with a kid who he thought was armed. This does NOT compare to MURDERING a little girl! "Some bad things"? You bleeding-heart weaklings.
Just putting this out there, if Ronny had murdered a child; isn't it possible that he may never have been released from prison? Therefore, an entire storyline of the movie would be altered. Obviously, you're saying that the novel pens Ronny as a child murderer. What was the premise for his release into society?
Well, you have to see it as a totally different story then.
I did find it funny that Sarah compared an adult flashing a child to a child flashing his sister. Also two very different things. Especially since a flasher could evolve into (or already be) a child molester.
> Especially since a flasher could evolve into (or already be) a child molester.
And a stamp collector could evolve into a child molester, and an airline pilot could evolve into a child molester, and so could a birdwatcher. In fact, anyone could.
What's your point?
-- What Would Jesus Do For A Klondike Bar (WWJDFAKB)?
Sounds like the OP is just looking for an excuse to hate on the Ronnie character and not give any seconds thoughts to the matter. Maybe if he/she realized that the author of the book co-wrote the screenplay with Todd Field, he/she would realize there's more to this story than mere blacn & white depictions of pedophiles, as the OP seems to hope for.
"What I don't understand is how we're going to stay alive this winter."
The point is also to paint those suburbanites as bad, judgmental people. Probably Republicans, you know. Got to make sure everyone knows how bad that is.
"The point is also to paint those suburbanites as bad, judgmental people. Probably Republicans, you know. Got to make sure everyone knows how bad that is"
LOL True in general, sofis, but the author actually did give the surburbanites pretty different depths, esp. in the book.
LOL! Icebox, there's NO "white" to a child-rapist. Sorry. And you're wrong; I wrote the author and he said he was amazed that anyone would have doubts about whether Ronnie was capable of killing a child. Boohoo, I'm too close-minded to feel bad for a poor pedo.
Say what? Pedophillia when it involves actively having sex wih children always equals rape, at the least it is statutory rape or child rape. Pedophillia in the clinical sense, ie adults having sex with prepubescent children (under 11 years old) is revolting and a line that civilized societies have drawn. Crossing this line is black and white and deserving of condemnation, not introspection and empathy for the pervert.
The pervs of this world can get all the help and group hugs they need (god knows the Rapist and Pedophile appologists of this world will be only too happy to oblige) while serving their full prison sentence.
Say what? Pedophillia when it involves actively having sex wih children always equals rape, at the least it is statutory rape or child rape.
Paedophilia is sexual attraction to children. You're right that any attempt to act on this beyond masturbatory fantasy will involve some kind of criminal offence -but- (a) it may not be as severe as child rape, as in the film portrayal or (b) they may not act on it at all.
What is being portrayed in this film is a man who has strong immoral urges to do immoral things, things that he knows are immoral. On a number of occasions, he has allowed these immoral urges to move him to immoral action.
However, we can see by the ending that he does feel great shame at himself for feeling and acting in this way, hence why he castrates himself.
You don't have to believe that what he did was excusable to be able to empathise with the inner turmoil involved.
reply share
You're quite correct for once. So, what's the problem. The movie is a different story to the book. It's allowed to be, if it wants.
Exactly. Not sure why so many people find this fact hard to accept. I mean, the movie credits will state, "based on..." hell, Brad was called Todd in the book, and they totally removed the fact that Sarah was bi-sexual because IMHO it does nothing to advance the movie plot.
_ Every person that served can be called a veteran, but not every veteran can be called a Marine.
reply share
The idea was to plant doubt in your mind, make you wonder if he was actually as bad as they were all saying. Of course we see that he is that bad, the pool scene illustrates that, but tipping off the audience ahead of time makes the character much less interesting.
He wanted to look at the kids, exatera; he was like a shark swimming around, though the scene hints rather than beating over the head. Ugh, ugh.
I actually came to like this film a lot after all, after talking to the author. I realized, all things considered, that inspite of the stupid dialogue comparing the pedo to the jerky policeman, the intent of the movie was not to liberalize things. That's a good theory, Teal.
The intent of the film is to humanize Ronnie. He's an individual with sins just like we all are, who, just like all of us, has done things that he regretted and sometimes wishes he could take back.
Part of the film's criticism was that human beings have the tendency to label individuals as good/evil, when in reality, they are human. It's so much easier for society to dehumanize individuals who have comitted evil actions than to actually try and understand why they did those deeds in the first place and show them compassion and love.
He may be a pedophile, but the film outright supports treating him with love, and criticizes the suburban populace for harassing him. I don't think there's anyway you can argue with that.
I don't think it pushes the idea that he's just another sinner who needs love at all. Criticizes harassing his family? Yes. But other than that, it's pretty non-prejudiced about what he is.
"The intent of the film is to humanize Ronnie. He's an individual with sins just like we all are, who, just like all of us, has done things that he regretted and sometimes wishes he could take back.
You Pedophile appologists make me *beep* sick. Not all "sin" is created equal. Have we all sinned in some fashion. Perhaps but MOST OF US are not lusting over, diddling and raping little kids. Pedophillia is not just a sin but is an abomination, the thoughts and actions of depraved defective individuals. Also, the sin that you so brazenly heap onto ALL your fellow human beings is typically restricted to self harm, ie drugs or boose, not physically hurting innocent people.
You Pedophile appologists make me *beep* sick. Not all "sin" is created equal.
I do agree that Ronnie's failings are by no means the same as the average person's, just as each of our sins are not equivalent to each other's. We all have different failings that are unique to use and some are more serious than others. In Ronnie's case, he has a very specific sexual failing that is outright horrific in how severe it is.
I don't think that means we should dehumanise him. He is still a person with thoughts and feelings. He even has some sense of right or wrong that leads him to great shame about who he is and drastic action to change who he is.
It's not about ignoring of whitewashing the horrible things he's done, it's just about seeing the whole picture of who he is. He may be a lot worse than us, but he's not as black through-and-through as it may be comfortable to imagine.
reply share
You didn't get the clear implication of him using a high voice to Sheila, threatening that she better not tell, and asking her to stop the car in front of the playground?
I've read the book, and while you are correct that Ronnie was a child-killer in the book, the film doesn't portray him that way. There's no law that says that movie adaptations have to follow the book 100%. Look at "The Shining", for example. Stanley Kubrick did a lot of his own creations there, changing characters' actions, sequence of events, the ending, and especially their appearances!
While I did feel a bit sorry for Ronnie losing his mom, and perhaps for trying to be better in the way he knew how, I despised that character. As if his past wasn't bad enough, his inexplicable actions on the date with that fragile woman were horrid! Why did he act all nice to her on the date, then act disgustingly in the car?!
"I'd say this cloud is Cumulo Nimbus." "Didn't he discover America?" "Penfold, shush."
But couldn't he just walk over to the playground himself? Why did he need to ruin a date that he had seemed to be enjoying? He himself wished he could find a girlfriend his own age!
So then he wasn't a 'bad guy trying to be good' after all then, as others are saying in this thread. I always maintained he was a schmuck.
"I'd say this cloud is Cumulo Nimbus." "Didn't he discover America?" "Penfold, shush."
Well he seemed to have more than one sexual pathology going on. Independent of his pedophilia he also apparently derived real sexual pleasure from the sense of empowerment he would get when exposing himself and jacking off in front of unsuspecting females. The entire "date" was an act of torturous foreplay for him; the whole evening was in effect working up to the final rite of the night. The more he could win her over and gain some measure of trust before he did the deed, the more epically he would get off. So just as she was letting her guard down it was more than he could possibly bear any longer so he whipped it out and got his rocks off right there.
It was so very tragic the way she reacted to it, as it becomes clear that the fleeting hope she had no right to ever hope had just turned around and clowned her again, confirming her worst fears about herself. The way she just sat there and took it instead of making a mad dash away made it so unmistakably clear that this wasn't the first time this sort of thing had happened to her. It's just that she had gotten to a place that the worst repeat victims always do where they just come to accept the abuse as an inevitability because they've internalized it as being their own fault.
It's still quite likely he had good intentions though since he understood why what he was doing was morally outrageous, but was just physiologically incapable of the impulse control required to contain his sexual urges whenever they arose. Think about what that would be like if you were born without the ability to control your most base impulses when your started getting sexually aroused. If he didn't have some redeeming quality within himself he would have continued living his depraved life without a second thought. That he chose resoundingly not do so means that, no matter what anyone might say, he's actually NOT a psychopath. He understood what he was doing was wrong and did experience guilt and remorse over his actions. And he does us all a favor by committing to the most generous and selfless act available to him; he removes the threat and burden he poses to society every moment he's alive.
Yech, for pete's sake. I think you overshot both in generosity to Ronnie and judgement about his intentions in the date. He did the violent deed near the end because of guilt towards his mother, and bc he was traumatized by sorrow; people can be psychopaths or sociopaths in some sense and still have some normal feelings. Plus, castration doesn't always help.
Actually the defining characteristic of sociopaths and psychopaths is the inability to feel remorse. Their brains are wired differently, so while they can experience other emotions the part of the brain responsible for guilt and shame is shorted. So no, my interpretation of it was that Ronnie couldn't be either. You can't just assume that everyone that suffers from co-morbid sexually deviant psychological disorders are also sociopaths or psychopaths. They're not the same thing.
Totally agree about the lame "He had done some bad things..." line, implying cchild abuse is no worse than a minor vice.I felt the castration theme was completely out of character for Ronnie, who'd shown no concern for anyone but himself up to that point.
Thank you Scottie! And I disagree with the person above you. Maybe such people aren't all clinicaly psychos or socios, but those going after innocents are monsters.
I know you wrote this a long time ago, but just saw the movie for the first time yesterday and I can totally understand your anger and frustration at the literary license taken between the film and the novel.
I think in some ways, the ambiguousness about whether or not Ronnie is a pedophile or not adds to the unease and strangeness of the movie as does Larry being more unhinged in the movie than in the book. Even so, I actually thought there had to be more to both stories. In the end, however, I could have done without BOTH subplots. To me, this was a story about an affair (her railing against Madame Bouvary and then, in a sense, becoming her), and the other two plot lines are sort of a distraction and they tonally bring down the movie. It meanders too much because of these plot lines.
Unfortunately, the way Ronnie is portrayed is actually what happens in real life. People get riled up and it almost becomes a herd mentality and that causes some bleeding hearts to almost feel sorry for Ronnie. I did not. I think the pool sequence and his date with that poor woman sum up Ronnie. His mom knew all along and while she defends him to her death (literally), she simply writes be a good boy to him.
I'm so disgusted by the ending of the film that I feel like I wasted the whole 2:30 or whatever length the movie was. I wanted to punch Patrick Wilson's character in the mouth, along with Jennifer Connelly's. Last rant: If I see one more sickening person insist on sleeping with their child, ruining their marriage and sex life as a result, I am going to scream!!!!!!!!
Xena, I love you :P I'm glad I got to enjoy the film over my initial anger at what seemed like excusing Ronnie (I talked with the author of the book), but I still agree with the general points we both made: my heart is totally solid towards him with no cracks or tears to be seen, and I see the ending now as the importance of Larry's redemption with himself, not Ronnie's chance to be sympathetic (though his whole story was a huge stomach-churner). And I strongly share your opinion about the bad choices Connelly's character made too: gone all day and you can't figure to give your husband some special attention he needs?? Her cluelessness was a huge bother in the story.
I don't think you get things much yourself, West; the movie painfully obviously pointed to Ronnie being a sinister character and had it attempted to make him at all sympathetic in the end, THAT would be the PC approach.
Ronnie is such a piece of shit in the book. It mentioned how he used to sneak out to pay phones in the middle of the night and taunt Diane, the mother of Holly, the little girl he murdered, saying “I know where she is. I’m never going to tell you.”