MovieChat Forums > Hard Candy (2006) Discussion > Its never clear if he is guilty right?!?

Its never clear if he is guilty right?!?

posted 11 years ago by aeris20000
96 replies | jump to latest

Just read some reviews and even a Wikipedia summary, and ppl treat Jeff like he is definitely a murdering child abuser and Hayley was seeking revenge.

Did we watch the same movie?! Thats the complete opposite impression I got from this movie.

Even at the end it is never clear if he was involved with the girls death and strongly hints that he is just saying what she wants to hear. He has been worn down and tortured and because he does fancy under age girls,(not a crime in itself and its never revealed whether he ever acted on it or if the images in his safe were even illegal or just his private legal shame, its ambiguous on whether there is any real evidence or just stuff Hayley fabricated), he is ashamed and doesn't want his ex, the woman he loves, to find out about it.

That is the true strength of this film, we feel and empathise with both characters simultaneously, never knowing if Jeff is an abuser, under age sex perp, or completely innocent of any crime. Never knowing if Hayley is the friend of the murdered girl,was abused before and drove psycho by it, or was lying or is just a pure psycho.

All we KNOW is that Jeff fancies under age girls, nothing else. This ambiguity makes this film a classic.....

And thats what I thought everyone who loved it got. Finding out other ppl dont has been my biggest movie interpretation shock in years.

Maybe this film is just a mirror that shows us back our prejudices, values and assumptions of the world if ppl who also love this film get the exact opposite interpretation.

So anyone who loves the film (7/10 or above), please respond. I give the film a 7/10,making it a superb film as I am a harsh reviewer. If the film really does say Jeff is the abuser and Hayley was seeking revenge, 100%, case closed. I would have to drop it to an average 5/10.

[–] lostn 10 years ago

If you're not the law, you don't have the authority to dole out justice.

The police make the arrests, the court decides the guilt and sentence. You don't get to take the law into your own hands.

She'd get into legal trouble if the police found out, though the public may still hail her as a hero.

[–] therefdotcom 10 years ago

yeaaah, maybe in europe. seen recent case decisions all over the US lately?

"laugh and the world laughs with you. Weep and you weep alone." - Dae-su Oh

[–] karenzkritterz 9 years ago

We take the law into our own hands every day. You just don't hear about it. I know of 2 cases involving people we knew of, and in both cases, they got off scott-free. Justifiable homicide.
If the legal system actually worked, then you would be right about the police, judge, jury, blah blah blah. But it doesn't, so sometimes the victim's dad, brother, mother, etc has to do something. If you don't "get" that after watching this whole movie, I hope if you have kids, they have someone better than you taking care of them.
"The police"...LOL

[–] karenzkritterz 9 years ago

My post was directed to lostn...sorry...I shouldn't post from my phone. It does weird stuff.

[–] ForTheNonce 9 years ago

Yeah, that was addressed in-film. She's a minor from a wealthy family and would have the best in legal defense...IF the police even pressed it, considering the pictures they'd find.

[–] btagent6454 10 years ago

(Spoiler alert)
Yes he was guilty. Even if we don't know what else was in the safe, we do know that he had a picture of the murdered girl. The same murdered girl that the other perpetrator said Jeff killed. The same girl Jeff admitted he had coffee with and the same girl that Jeff said that he wanted to take pictures of.
Now we don't know whether it was Jeff or the other guy that actually killed the girl but I don't think that really matters. It paints a pretty clear picture that Jeff met the girl over the internet and he and his friend took her.

[–] TheManFromSmallville 10 years ago

Did you spend a lot of time on this post? Your wall of text must have made you feel like you were writing some thought provoking analysis, and yet you completely missed huge plot points that everyone has already pointed out. You should feel pretty stupid 😁

[–] Bhoooop_Daahuut 10 years ago

I note that unless you like being completely trashed by all and sundry you basically can't post anything on the IMDB now, unless it's: "This film was great. I really liked the stars... and the director."

[–] bh_tafe3 10 years ago

note that unless you like being completely trashed by all and sundry you basically can't post anything on the IMDB now, unless it's: "This film was great. I really liked the stars... and the director."

Actually you can't even say that. On most boards a legion of people will call you a troll for liking any movie because it sucks, the actors sucked and the direction was horrible. Apparently failing to realize that coming to a board dedicated to a particular film simply to trash it, denigrate its fans and tear it to pieces is EXACTLY what a troll would do.

You need a thick skin and confidence to express your ideas and defend them, even to people who are clearly not interested in having an intelligent and respectful conversation.

In the case of the OP, they had an opinion, they clearly expressed it and were hoping to have an intelligent discussion about what they'd written, something that went over the head of most of the respondants, which just wanted to act like dicks.

To the OP, I like that you mention the fact that Jeff had been castrated and tortured and that this makes his confession unreliable. This is quite a valid point, but my feeling is that in the logic and narrative structure used in the story, the viewer is supposed to take the revelations as truth and come to the conclusion that Jeff was either a murderer, or accomplice to said murder, who has been trapped and cornered by this young girl.

It is up to the viewer to decide if he deserved to be castrated, hung etc for his crimes. That, IMO, is the moral quandary and the moral ambiguity that makes this film work. But there is no real question that he did the crimes he was accused of. If he is innocent then the film is a disturbing shaggy dog story about a sociopathic teenager who was invited into a man's house, cut off his entrails, framed him for sex offences and then forced him to hang himself. Basically, if Jeff is innocent than the film is utter sh!te.

"What every columnist needs to do is shut the f-ck up!"

[–] blufftoni 10 years ago

I agree that much of his confession could be seen as him bargaining for his life and saying what he believes his interrogator wants to hear but the true moment of him revealing his guilt is the reaction to "Hayley" saying the killer's name.

[–] mimsies 8 years ago

Course... there is the issue that she didn't ACTUALLY CASTRATE HIM!

So yeah clearly the OP missed some pretty major plot points. So did you. And some other people.

And yeah it was a MAJOR plot point, because a freshly castrated man who hanged himself? Yeah that wouldn't be suspicious, AT ALL.

[–] urasawa 10 years ago

Mb that was said already, but the only thing that's ambiguous is whether he killed the girl or only watched while his friend killed her. Either way, he's guilty of murder(/accessory to). The way he acted with the girl was not ambiguous and neither were the kiddie porn pictures she finds (which aren't shown for obv reasons). You should watch again. We know from the beginning that he's a predator that lures a 14 y.o. to go to his house alone, and it only gets worse from there.

PS. when the girl says that his story about his aunt Denise sounds really good, it sort of implies that it's rehearsed/it's a lie.

[–] mdonln 10 years ago

That is the true strength of this film, we feel and empathise with both characters simultaneously, never knowing if Jeff is an abuser, under age sex perp, or completely innocent of any crime. Never knowing if Hayley is the friend of the murdered girl,was abused before and drove psycho by it, or was lying or is just a pure psycho.

Nope, I never once empathized with Hayley. She's crazy! I found her to be lacking any redeeming qualities. I have compassion for people who have been victimized in any way but at the point those people choose to flip the script and start victimizing others, all bets are off. They become the abuser. It's their victim that deserves compassion.

Supposedly, most abusers and pedophiles were once abused themselves. Does this give them a pass or the right to then abuse others? Hell NO!!!! In fact, you'd think they'd be the last people to ever become abusers because they know how horrible it is to be victimized. Why would they be willing to hurt someone else?

When someone reaches the point of lunacy Hayley has reached, whatever they think is 'proof' of a crime is proof enough for them. This is similar to these mass shooters who shoot and kill random strangers because in their twisted minds they think everyone is out to get them. Everyone is their persecutor and tormentor. One wrong look or an accidental bump becomes a personal attack in their mind; an offense punishable by death. Crazy!

Jeff's guilt or innocence is actually irrelevant in this situation. He has no chance of defending himself against her accusations so how could we ever know one way or another? All we know is that he's being held captive, tortured and brutalized. Accusers need to provide proof or evidence so the accused can defend against them in court. We can't have people accusing others of random crimes then appointing themselves to act as judge and executioner. That just won't work.

Let's use Bill Cosby as an example. We've all heard the accusations against him but we don't know what happened. Some say it 'must' be true because there are so many accusers. That's ridiculous! Some people would join the list just to get their names in the news, maybe write a book, make some money. These people waited way too long. That's not right.

If the women are lying, how does Cosby defend against these claims now? It's probably impossible but the damage to his reputation is done.

On the other hands, let's say all, most or any of the women are telling the truth. Didn't they have a responsibility to come forward sooner? I think so. If true and they had proof, they would have prevented the same thing happening to so many other victims and they would have exposed a dangerous predator; hopefully putting him behind bars.

Victims can speak up or not. It's their choice but if the timeframe in which they must do it (the statute of limitations) expires then they need to live with their decision to stay quiet. Otherwise, they should be liable to any other victim that came after them. Their failure to come forward earlier allowed the abuser to keep committing crimes.

I realize it's not easy to come forward but the alternative is as bad. People need to speak up while something can still be done or they have to keep it to themselves later. It's not right to be able to slander anyone at will without proof, beyond the time that person can rightfully defend him or herself in court and without repercussion to accusers who may lying.

[–] therefdotcom 10 years ago

wow, haven't read anything this despicable in a while. i hope for us that you are already hospitalized.

[–] mdonln 10 years ago

therefdotcom said > wow, haven't read anything this despicable in a while.

You are, of course, entitled to your opinion but is it really an opinion? You didn't say what you thought was so 'despicable'; you offered no proof. It sounds more like an accusation. Yes, I did kind of go on a rant but that was my honest reaction to the movie and some of the comments I'd read. Who did I harm exactly? No one! I accused no one; I victimized no one. Still, you say despicable. I somehow deserve hatred and contempt? Wow

--

I'm really tired of every day seeing on the news or reading about crimes that are committed by people who believe they're justified because they feel they've been victimized in some way (perceived or real). They're 'playing the victim' because they know victims usually get unquestioned sympathy.

That's not to say they weren't victimized and they don't have issues but I don't think that gives anyone a pass or the right to inflict harm on others because they're hurting. Unchecked this creates a continuous loop of victimization that never seems to end. Eventually all of society is sucked into this vortex and everything we call civilized society falls apart.

As humans, we have worked hard for centuries to be civilized. We’re by no means perfect but we try to maintain order. It’s always a work in progress but we can’t give up. We have to continue to work at it lest we become what we hate.

In regards to my Bill Cosby comments, I stand by what I said. If any of this long list of women is telling the truth (I'm not saying they're not; I don’t know) part of their problem is the other victims. They're almost as much to blame as the person, in this case Cosby, who they’re accusing. Those earlier victims, if indeed they were, chose to remain silent; allowing the accused to prey on more and more victims. It needs to be said.

Society tries to give these people a pass by saying, “oh they were unable to step forward at that time.” That's a bunch of hooey. I’m not downplaying their suffering but there are systems in place to assist such victims. Their identity is protected and there are umpteen agencies to help. Okay, so now all these years later they're strong enough to step forward and speak up. Great but what the hell does it matter now? What's the point? Nothing can legally be done to the supposed offender. Meanwhile, if true, they’ve left a long list of other victims in their wake. Come on, this has got to stop!!!

Sure, a so-called offender’s reputation can be ruined and they can suffer financial loss, embarrassment, and stigmatization but mere gossip can do that too; all without a shred of evidence or any truth behind it. Is that the world we want to live in? Not me but that’s the direction we’re headed. It’s wrong.

I am beyond frustrated hearing about these cases day in and day out. The accused is lambasted for not commenting but the truth is under our system they don't have to say a word and even if they did, what could they possibly say?

That's the fault of the people who waited too damn long to say anything. It works in their advantage especially if they're lying. I'm not defending Cosby or anyone in particular and I’m not accusing the women of lying but the fact everything is in limbo is directly related to the fact they did not speak up sooner.

We live in communities of people. We all have responsibilities to ourselves and to each other. As I said before, we can't go around hurting people because we have been hurt ourselves. That includes false accusations and accusations that can no longer be adjudicated. There’s a reason there are statute of limitations. We need to speak up soon to get help. Mistakes are made all the time so we need to give accused people the right and ability to defend themselves. Even in the case of murder that has no SOL, the more time goes by, the harder it may be to bring someone to justice. If someone is guilty, let them fry but their guilt has to be based on actual proof not random, unsubstantiated accusations.

I want guilty people to pay for their crimes but I don't exactly trust a crazy person or one who may have ulterior motives to have the final word. This is why we have a court system and why everyone should do their civic duty to be involved when called. Again, we're civilized people, if we take it seriously and do our best to understand the process and do what’s right, it usually works.

The court (judges, jurors, etc.) are supposed to be impartial outsiders who can look at things objectively and decide. The less we’re willing to do that the more likely people will take matters into their own hands or attempt to try people (unfairly) in the public arena. A victim's reasoning may be way off. This is sometimes why crimes are committed in the first place. People feel victimized and react, sometimes violently. They can't see straight or see beyond the immediate situation.

The movie that launched this particular discussion, kind of leaves it in our hands to decide where we stand. We don't have enough information. All we know is what happens before our eyes in the movie. There’s no ‘back story’ on either people. It’s like looking at a photograph. We don't know the whole story. Someone may tell us what happened right before the picture was shot but we don't know if it's true. It doesn't mean they're lying but it's only their view of things, not the whole picture.

i hope for us that you are already hospitalized.

Nope, sorry, I'm not hospitalized; don’t plan to be either. I'm a sane, rational, logical person with strong opinions. Interestingly and ironically, by suggesting I should be hospitalized (actually, with your entire post), you're making my point for me. It's funny how you don't see that.

[–] mimsies 8 years ago

They're almost as much to blame as the person, in this case Cosby, who they’re accusing.

Pretty much... nope. They are no where near as much to blame as the actual rapist. In fact, they aren't to blame at all.

I can honestly say I sincerely hope you NEVER go through the kind of trauma that lands you in a similar situation so you can know first hand.

Frankly... that is the kind of attitude and pronouncement that makes it nearly impossible to speak up in the first place. You are basically contributing to the problem.

Wish you the best, and hope that at some point you understand better, but not from being hurt, rather through building your compassion.

[–] walkenschvitzen 10 years ago

When someone reaches the point of lunacy Hayley has reached, whatever they think is 'proof' of a crime is proof enough for them. This is similar to these mass shooters who shoot and kill random strangers because in their twisted minds they think everyone is out to get them.

Hayley wasn't crazy. She most likely was friends with, or knew the victim, but didn't have the evidence to bring to the police. So she hatched a plan to capture the men she knew were responsible and psychologically torture them into revealing their guilt and then give them a choice between facing up to their horrific crimes, and jail, or killing themselves. She wasn't targeting random ephebophile strangers she met on the internet and hoping they had done something bad, but rather these two men in particular. She found the first presumably from information from the victim, and he gave up Jeff. She didn't trust that the law would be able to force them to implicate themselves, so she forced them to confess by making them believe she was mutilating them.

You bring up Bill Cosby -- clearly unrelated to the situation in the movie in which a 14-year-old girl was raped and murdered by two perpetrators, but...okay. I'll bite.

The man is guilty as sin. You trot out "they waited too long" -- as if it would have made a difference if they came out right away! From their perspective, coming forward most likely would have ruined their lives. They had no way of knowing that there would be other victims to support their stories, and every reason to believe that they would be the ones interrogated: "What were you doing in his hotel room?"

You continue with "fame seeker / book deal" -- right, like the 15th through the 20th victims were all thinking that they would get book deals. I mean, who wouldn't want to read 20 different books by all of the victims of a serial sexual predator? Surely, you must be joking.

If it's so easy to make money off of a celebrity with a false allegation and future book deal, ask yourself why then don't we see twenty women coming forward every time a high-profile, wealthy individual is accused of rape, as happened in this case?

You also wade into some really dark victim-blaming territory when you say this:

Victims can speak up or not. It's their choice but if the timeframe in which they must do it (the statute of limitations) expires then they need to live with their decision to stay quiet. Otherwise, they should be liable to any other victim that came after them. Their failure to come forward earlier allowed the abuser to keep committing crimes.

Never mind the obvious fact that it is the perpetrator who is liable for any future victims, and not his victims who were too afraid to come forward; I'm terribly confused by your suggestion that they "need to live with their decision to stay quiet. Otherwise..."

Are you saying that, in your mind, if they wait beyond the statute of limitations, they aren't liable to any other victim that comes after them, so long as they stay quiet?

[–] mdonln 10 years ago

Honestly, if you don't get what I'm saying in regards to the movie, there's no way we can even begin to discuss anything else. Your thinking, in my opinion, is flawed. You're so programmed to see things a certain way you're on automatic pilot and not in full control of your own mental processes. If you wish, try the following, keeping in mind first the movie then the Cosby issue.

Ask yourself the questions below, make a list

> What do you think you know?

> How did you get that information?

> Is anything on your list based on assumptions? Cross it out.

> Is anything on your list from the 'victim'? If it's not supported by objective proof/evidence, cross it out.

> What do you actually know?

> What information do you need but don't yet have?

> Based on the modified list, what's your conclusion?

If you still can say the same things you said before, then so be it but perhaps in the process you'll begin to understand what I've been trying to say.

[–] Neo_striker 10 years ago

You really are programmed to think in a certain way, a seriously twisted and dangerous way. It would be really scary if YOU are in full control of your own mental processes to even insinuate that victims should not talk about their abusers, no matter how much time'd have passed.

[–] mdonln 10 years ago

Neo_striker > You really are programmed to think in a certain way, a seriously twisted and dangerous way. It would be really scary if YOU are in full control of your own mental processes to even insinuate that victims should not talk about their abusers, no matter how much time'd have passed.

My friend, you are entitled to your opinion but, obviously, you missed my point completely.

I don’t know where you live but if you live here in the United States of America you should know better. Here we do not condemn people based on mere accusations. We have a legal system in which the accused have rights. There’s a presumption of innocence, evidence of a crime is required, and the accused can choose to stay silent without it casting shadows and doubts upon their innocence. In criminal trials, the burden of proof lies with the accuser, not the accused. This doesn’t just apply to this case but all cases. If we fail to protect those rights, we will surely lose them.

I am not saying the victim should not step forward; quite the contrary. The entire criminal and legal system hinges on the victim coming forward. That is exactly what I’m saying. Victims have a responsibility to speak up and it must be within the timeframe allowed so the crimes they allege can be properly investigated and, if appropriate, tried in a court of law; not in a court of public opinion. This requirement benefits not only the victim but also the accused and all of society as it may prevent others from being victimized by someone who may be guilty and clear someone who may be innocent.

What has been happening lately flies in the face of reason and our judicial system. When victims fail to come forward, crimes go unreported. The longer they wait, they make it much harder to investigate and find evidence of a crime; making it more likely the accused, even if guilty, will walk free. They can’t decide to wait past a certain point then speak freely against anyone they choose. It’s just not fair to the accused or any of us to have someone tried in the media and in cyberspace. It is gossip, plain and simple. There are libel and slander laws against such behavior but unfortunately they shift the burden on the very person being accused as he/she must pursue the case often at great personal expense of time and money.

Is that the society you want to live in? If this keeps up, that where we're heading. There are already plenty of places in the world where people have few, if any, rights. We cannot let that happen here as well. Too many people have sacrificed, fought, and died to establish and preserve those rights for us. Now we must do our part to preserve those rights for future generations. It is our responsibility and our obligation, each one of us, as citizens to speak out against injustice; even when perpetrated against the rights we hold dear. I’m sorry if you are unable or unwilling to see that.

[–] Splarne 10 years ago

Is that the society you want to live in? If this keeps up, that where we're heading. There are already plenty of places in the world where people have few, if any, rights. We cannot let that happen here as well.

where is here?

Too many people have sacrificed, fought, and died to establish and preserve those rights for us. Now we must do our part to preserve those rights for future generations.

something tells me you aren't talking about the rights of victims to hunt down potential pedophiles and castrate them.

***

Go away, or I shall taunt you a second time!

[–] mdonln 10 years ago

Splarne, as I said early on in my last post, I live in the U.S. We don't condone vigilante justice here. The courts make plenty of mistakes but something tells me, if left in the hands of individuals, a lot more mistakes of justice would be made.

It's one of the few things I think the government should be doing and probably can do better for us than individuals can do for ourselves. That said, since we make up the government we have a responsibility to play our part - report crimes, do jury duty, respect the laws, etc.

In fact, I don't need to say 'if' left in the hands of individuals, because that's what a lot of crime and violence is, people taking the law into their own hands - as we see in Hard Candy. What happens in those cases? Innocent people often end up hurt or even dead. Sometimes it's over serious issues but often the same thing happens over the pettiest, most trivial things.
--

The rights I'm referring to are the rights to have our day in court. Anyone can accuse anyone else but it doesn't mean a crime has been committed. The accuser needs more proof than what's in their own imaginations. They have to be able to prove someone is guilty to an impartial, objective group of people. The idea that someone can do to someone else what is done to the victim in this movie (and I am talking about the male character - the only victim we see) is shocking and offensive. I cannot believe anyone would defend such behavior. If the girl or someone she knows or someone she's heard of was a victim of a horrendous crime she needs to report it; not plan and carryout a similarly horrendous crime. The cycle of violence would never end.
--

By the way, it's really hard to jump midstream into a 'conversation' or an exchange and get the full gist of what's being said or discussed. It seems that's what you may have done here. While I was discussing the movie, there were other related topics of crime and punishment that came up as well.
--

[–] therefdotcom 10 years ago

"We don't condone vigilante justice here"

iraque?

[–] mdonln 10 years ago

It's not condoned here but that doesn't mean it never happens. What's portrayed in the movie is a good example of vigilante justice. Iraq, on the other hand, whatever one feels about that situation, is not.

[–] candigale 10 years ago

Well, if he wasn't guilty, and had proof he wasn't guilty, then why did he kill himself? I don't care what anyone says, if I was in his shoes, and knew I wasn't a pedophile or murderer, I certainly would have NOT killed myself. That doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

[–] novastar_6 10 years ago

Granted innocent people DO at times commit suicide after being accused of a crime, but yeah I'm inclined to agree, if I DIDN'T do something, I'm staying right put, thank you very much.

[–] mdonln 10 years ago

I agree completely with you. I would neither admit to something I didn't do nor take my own life. But, I'm not naive; I know some people would. It happens a lot more often than I can even believe myself but we know it happens.

Some people will kill themselves to escape the pain of a hang-nail. I'm being facetious but my point is we don't all have the same threshold and really don't know what someone else would be capable of enduring. In the moment, some people can't see the horizon.

I hear it all the time when people are interviewed after it's determined they were not guilty. Some have low mental capacity but some seem perfectly 'normal'. Most say they just couldn't go on in the situation they were in. A lot of times that just being in a room being questioned. The guy in the movie endured much more than that. Add to that, the fact he was already in a kind of depressive state after having lost his girlfriend and his life wasn't what he thought it should be.

It is not proof of guilt as much as it may be proof of a mental breakdown from stress.

[–] Nobody-M 10 years ago

Lots of frustrated pedophiles on this board.

[–] candigale 10 years ago

Yep, you figured us out, we're busted! I want to confess........

[–] karenzkritterz 9 years ago

Amen to that!!!!
There are so many points that are pointed out ad nauseum to people who STILL don't get Jeff's guilt.
He. Was. Not. Castrated. She might have scared his balls back up into his abdomen for a bit, but they were definitely there after the "surgery."
The things he had in his safe...that Haylie saw...were so bad that HE HUNG HIMSELF rather than let the police and his ex know about them. I reiterate; he hung himself. She didn't threaten to shoot him if he didn't do it. She gave him a choice.
When he got loose, he didn't call the police, run away, etc. He went after her with a butcher knife. When he found her on the roof, he went at her, asking, "Who do you want to *beep* first, me or the knife?" Then he admitted to wanting to take part in Donna Maur's murder, but was only allowed to take pictures. Get that? He didn't help her. He didn't tell anyone. HE TOOK PICTURES. That alone is enough for what he got.
The reason people get so snarky on the boards is not because we're all cyber-bullies. It's because we're sick of having to explain...AGAIN...things that were in the movie, clear as day, and then someone says something so stupid, like, "We don't even know if he's guilty or not," or "She castrated him!! She's crazy!!", and my personal favorite, "She should have let the police handle it."
Jesus Christ. If you paid attention, you see that this guy had way more going against him than Jared, the Subway guy. And people are screaming about how easily he got off. It's absolutely ridiculous.