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.

[–] rand_corp 10 years ago

It is very clear though, he completely makes it clear himself in how he reacts to the name 'Aaron'. That's the moment he knows he lost, and why he hangs himself. At that moment he knows she has completely figured it out before ever contacting him.

[–] zee944 9 years ago

He was guilty of SOMETHING (it is suggested he abused underage girls), since he admitted he has to go to prison if Hayley calls the police.
If he was guilty of MURDERING a girl, is not clear. There are clues that suggest he did (stabbing that girl in the vagina on that picture when he's alone at first place), but he never admits that and there's no proof whatsoever. I also think it served the movie's intention to keep it ambiguous how guilty he is exactly.

[–] Jackie68 9 years ago

It was blinking obvious that he was involved with the murder of the girl. I think a lot of this bad reaction is because a girl got one over on a guy. Replace her with a man, say the murdered girl's father, people would then have been cheering him on from the rooftops.

[–] zee944 9 years ago

It was blinking obvious that he was involved with the murder of the girl.

No, it wasn't. He was involved in seducing/kidnapping/etc. the girl, he admitted it. But it could've been the other guy's idea and act to murder her.

[–] Planikta 9 years ago

No matter who's idea it is to commit any particular crime, if you take active part in it (taking photos of it being done, not reporting the crime to authorities, etc...), you're "involved" in that crime, by definition. It doesn't even matter who actually killed Donna Mauer, the fact remains that he took part in her murder.

[–] doubl3 9 years ago

Which is a lot of what I don't like about the movie. If he was truly guilty of murder it's LESS of an issue what she did, but still even then I don't like vigilante justice movies. But ESPECIALLY ones where the person dishing it out doesn't know if the person was guilty or not or if the crime was not murder. She has done just as wrong as he has.

[–] therefdotcom 9 years ago

actually you are the first person to consider that he is completely innocent. maybe you want to rewatch the film.

[–] kya1 9 years ago

The evidence was never shown, but the scene made it clear that he is guilty of the crime. At least, that's what I got from it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GAIJ3Rh5Qxs

[–] Royalcourtier 9 years ago

The only one who is guilty is the girl, who kidnaps, tortures and mutilates a man.

[–] iamvox 9 years ago

The evidence of Jeff's guilt is never in question. We know he's guilty from the first frame of the film. Unless you're saying that it's okay to rape/murder teenage girls? I sure hope that's not what you're saying because, well, that's disgusting.

[–] Ringworm7 9 years ago

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.

*nods in agreement* that's what I got from the film, also. simply the one tear running down Jeff's face as Hayley looks through the photos she found in the safe confirms his guilt. I don't think it's pedophilia, since post-puberty is "too old" for them. even if he only took partially nude pics of under-18 girls, he'd still be a sexual offender - not sure what charge.

I've watched this film twice, and that's enough for me. at first I was silently cheering Hayley, though she was also committing crimes, even the crime of sexual abuse (the "castration" required nudity, some touching. my second viewing made almost everything very clear. Hayley is a psychopath or sociopath, and Jeff at the very least grooms, sexually abuses and exploits teen girls. No-win situation, it's simply a story about two people.

[–] xandere313 9 years ago

He has pictures of young girls but I'm fairly certain the director has flat out said he was innocent of the crimes Hayley accused.

[–] coolbrett 9 years ago

Yeah he seemed to be telling the truth about that. But even Hailey herself said she doesn't care. She has enough evidence on him to prove he's a pedophile and that's all it takes. Besides, he knew the other guy killed her and he didn't do anything about it nor did he learn anything from it.

[–] therefdotcom 9 years ago

yup. let's not forget he also wanted to make pictures of the crime for his own amusement.

it also did not keep him from specifically seek out what he thought to be a 14 year old (looking even younger), luring her to his house, lying to her about having the same interests, trying to get her drunk and who knows what else he had in mind. he also seemed to have routine in what he did.

also, as you said there were two guys, him and the other dude hailey visited before. both claim to be not guilty, but one had done it.

[–] scyza 9 years ago

Like she said in the end... it doesn't really make any difference which one of the men did it and which one watched. The one watching is no less guilty.

[–] therefdotcom 9 years ago

absolutely agreed.

[–] Royalcourtier 8 years ago

He was never shown to be guilty of anything. The psycho girl was however guilty of kidnapping, torture and ultimately murder. I don't know why people defend her, or call her a vigilante. She is committing far worse than she suspects him of doing.

[–] iamvox 8 years ago

Like the director said, he's guilty from the very first frame where he's chatting up a 14 year old girl online. He even admits his guilt near the end of the film. When he had the chance to run away and get the police, he didn't. The film leaves absolutely no doubt of his guilt.

That so many people come away from the film questioning it says a lot more about culturally ingrained gender biases than any possible failure of the film.

[–] The-Last-Prydonian 8 years ago

Like the director said, he's guilty from the very first frame where he's chatting up a 14 year old girl online. He even admits his guilt near the end of the film. When he had the chance to run away and get the police, he didn't. The film leaves absolutely no doubt of his guilt.

There aren't always definite answers in a movie as what is put on screen can be interpreted differently from what the writer/director might have intended. True, it seems likely that he was grooming her. The interaction he had with her early on was wholly inappropriate after all. Like for example when she flashes him and he calls her a tease. However, we can't know for sure if she wasn't going to be hist first victim and he still only told her what he thought she wanted to hear at the end. He'd been worn down like any torture victim. You abuse them enough and they'll tell you want to hear so they'll relent. That's the major flaw of any kind of torture.

In essence you can argue he was doing society a favour because she was ridding the world of one less potential sex offender but we can't still for sure know he did what he said he did.

[–] The-Last-Prydonian 8 years ago

He was never shown to be guilty of anything. The psycho girl was however guilty of kidnapping, torture and ultimately murder. I don't know why people defend her, or call her a vigilante. She is committing far worse than she suspects him of doing.

I'm not so sure about that. He was allegedly guilty of watching as another guy sexually abused and murdered a teenage girl. In essence he was complicit in a very serious, not to mention sick and potentially sadistic crime. I say potentially sadistic as I don't recall if it was ever implied the victim was tortured and that he death wasn't quick. It's been a while since I watched the movie. That's not to suggest what was perpetrated wasn't awful but never the less.

[–] mimsies 8 years ago

Your instance that she mutilates him is clear proof that you didn't watch the movie closely enough to know what was going on. So I am not surprised that you think there is no evidence that he is guilty of anything.

[–] AndrewGS 8 years ago

No, it's pretty clear he is guilty of both abuse and violence even though he felt some unease and maybe denial about it.

When Hailey sees the photos she seems actually shocked, as if they were more explicit and degrading than even she suspected.
When he says stop she asks what would he do if a girl said stop to him and he doesn't claim he would stop (this may be a somewhat weak indication, alternately that he knows she wouldn't believe him, but it's still suggestive).
When he gets the knife and stabs a woman's photo and gets ready to assault her he admits to himself that this (violent, misogynistic) is who he is.
And at the end Hailey claims that she had earlier tormented Aaron and he implicated Jeff and Jeff cringes as if he knows it's true so he knows he's totally caught and out of options.